HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0407 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ImJ)()~~.nt: ....Any.citizen .may..orally address.the Council on non-agenda .items .duringthePublic.Forum. _. Any citizen. may.subrnitwritten comments
t(}theC?1l11ci1()nal1y item on the Agenda, unlessiti~ the subject ora public hearing and the record is closed. . . Except for pub]ichsarings, there is no
absOluterighttoorally address the Coundlon anagendaite~.. . Time permitting,. the . . Presidil1g Officer may allow oral testim?n~; however, public
meetil1~~ lawgllaranteesonlypublicattendance,notpuplic participation.. If you wish tq~pe~k, pleasefilJ out the Speaker Request~ormlocatednear
theentr~cetothe. CouncilChaITIbers... The chair \ViII recognize you and inform yo~ast()theam?untof time allotted to you, ifanr'Ibe time granted
will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item. under discussion, thenurnber of people who wish to be heard, . and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 7, 2009
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Study Session of March 16,2009
2. Executive Session of March 17, 2009
3. Regular Council of March 17, 2009
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Proclamation of April as "Donate Life Month"
2. Proclamation of April 19-25 as "Independent Media Week"
3. Tree City USA Presentation
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Helena Darling
dba Palace Cafe at 542 A Street?
3. Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting the
National Incident Management System for Use in Emergency Situations?"
4. Will Council authorize the City Administrator to sign a revised Oregon Water
Resources Department Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant agreement in
the amount of $111,256?
5. Will Council approve two intergovernmental agreements with the Oregon Department
of Transportation to fund American Recovery and Reinvestment Act public works
projects? -
6. Will Council authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA/2009 Oregon
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B"
Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and
Storage Reservoir Improvement Project?
(X)UNCIL ivlEFfTNCiS ARE BR()Al)('AS'r IJVE ON CIJANNl:~l_, 9
VISrr-IlIE erry Of,' ASI-ILAND'S \VE_B Sfft: A'1 \V\V'vV.ASJILA ND.OR.US
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS {Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
vote of council {AMC ~2.04.050})
1. Should Council award up to $165,367 in Community Development Block Grant funds
to one or more of the respondents to the Request for Proposals in compliance with
eligibility criteria of the Department of Housing and Urban Development? [30 Minutes]
2. Should the Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Sign Code
Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.96)? Should the Council approve first
reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review Chapter of the Ashland
Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed
as contributing historic resources within a Historic District? [45 Minutes]
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does the Council want to place some or all of the City's Tier 2 electric load on the
Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply (NIES), which is a corporation formed by
Northwest Requirement Utilities to provide power to local governments? [20 Minutes]
2. Does the Council wish to continue the current contact with RVTD to reduce transit
fares in Ashland by 750/0 or does the Council wish to change the contact to
simultaneously restore Route 5 service and reduce the subsidy within Ashland to
500/0? [30 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the Council coduct and approve the Second Reading of an ordinance titled,
"An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-
19"? [5 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
None.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification
72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
(-OUNCTL NIEr~"rINGS ARE BRC)ADCAS'r LIVF~ ON CFlANNEL, 9
VISJ-rrlrF~ ('I'rY ()l: ASIILA ND'S \VF::B SITE: AI \V\V\V.ASrfLAND.OR.US
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 16, 2009
Page 1 of2
MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, March 16, 2009
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
Councilor Voisin, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Navickas arrived at 5 :35 p.m. and
Councilor Lemhouse at 5:39 p.m.
1. Discussion of Water and Wastewater utility rates effective April 20, 2009.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the rate increase consisted of water and sewer and
the cost to the community would be an average of $6.66 per month through out the year based on a family of
four living in a 1,500 square foot house on a comer lot during the winter months.
Mr. Tuneberg provided a presentation that included the following: (presentation attached)
. Review of the Need for Water & Wastewater Rate Increase
. Review Fund Health for Water and Wastewater
. Proposed changes this year
. A look forward to next year
. Why Now?
. Comparison of Operational Ending Fund Balance - All table
. Ending Fund Balance Chart
. Water & Wastewater Total Ending Fund Balances
. Ending Fund Balance Chart - Projected with Larger Adjustments
. Water Fund
Mr. Tuneberg stated it would be difficult to pay back the $700,000 loan from this year in bonds. The
Cemetery Trust Fund has approximately $800,000 that qualifies as a Capital Interfund Loan with a five-year
pay back period. If the Council decided to use the Cemetery Trust Fund as a Capital Interfund Loan, staff
would identifY a sequence of payments over the five years of the loan, restoring it with interest.
. Revenue to Expense Issues
Mr. Tuneberg explained what was required for Water Revenue Bonds, Full Faith and Credit Bonds and the
implications of lending money to the City from other City funds. Reducing internal costs would require an
alternate revenue stream. He used the Technology Debt as an example stating enterprises contributed heavily
to the annual $l.4million the City pays towards this debt. The General Fund was recently increased to keep
property taxes and charges low, not paying franchise fees to this fund would create a tremendous shortfall.
. Water Fund Needs
. Wastewater Fund
. Revenue to Expense Issues
. Wastewater Fund Needs
. Challenges -A Reminder from February 19,2009
. Will this work?
City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested that if the Council went with tiered rates to have a 10% base
charge on the low tier and increase the upper tiers accordingly. The problem with both funds is operating costs
exceed revenue and due to the economic situation, the City has gone into money reserved for Systems
Development Charges (SDC).
Mr. Tuneberg commented in the event of a dry summer and high tourism season, staff would ask for a rates
decrease next year as long as the summer did not incur conservation or penalty charges.
- r I
CITYCOUNC~STUDYSES~ON
March 16, 2009
Page 2 of2
2. Discussion of the FYI0 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the overall FYI0-15 CIP
Program in concept, and the FYIO Capital Equipment Plan.
Public Works Director Mike Faught responded to an earlier inquiry regarding $500,000 in the proposed
budget, explaining $350,000 was for the Wastewater Master Plan and $150,000 he recommended as
reimbursement for each of the Systems Development Charges (SDC) funds.
Mr. Faught provided a presentation that included (presentation attached):
. The CIP Document
. Availability of Funds
. Federal Stimulus Funded Projects
. Master Plans
Mr. Faught explained the City is in permit review with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) regarding water temperature and will have five years to go through the study and determine a solution.
. FY09 Current Year
. FY09 Current Year Highlights
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Program by Division
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Transportation Project List
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed LID and Storm Drain Project List
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Airport Project List
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Water Fund Project List
Mr. Faught noted that the Public Works Department would submit a Stimulus Package application for
$4million April 15, 2009 for consideration pending the Council's approval.
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Wastewater Fund Project List
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Electric Fund Project List
Director of Electric Utilities Dick Wanderscheid explained projects for the Electric Department depend on new
construction that is currently down this year but costs are recovered through fees.
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed AFN / Telecom / IT Project Lists
Interim Information Technology Director Michael Ainsworth noted the department had deployed
approximately six extensions using the mesh net systems obtained from Medford and added mesh net goes one
tenth of a mile where Wi Max goes five miles.
Telecommunication Engineer Richard Holbo discussed desktop and laptop replacement periods explaining that
staff used a three-year replacement period because of warranties and the increased maintenance costs staff and
hardware incurred when previous replacement periods were extended.
. FYI0 CIP - Proposed Facilities & Parks Project Lists
. FYI0 Capital Equipment Purchase Plan
. FYI0-15 CIP Plan
. FYI0-15 Highlights, Transportation, LIDs and Airport
. FYI0-15 CIP Highlights Storm Drain, Water, Wastewater
. FYI0-15 CIP Highlights Electric
. FYI0-15 CIP Highlights AFN, Telecom, IT
. FYI0-15 CIP Highlights City Facilities and Parks
Meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
- r I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17,2009
Page 1 of6
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 17, 2009
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Stromberg announced that the City is reviewing applications for Annual Appointments and invited
individuals to volunteer to the various Commissions & Committees.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of March 2, 2009 and Regular Council meeting of March 3, 2009 were
approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patricia Groth dba
Morningglory Restaurant at 1149 Siskiyou Blvd.?
3. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Sole Source Procurement
for the acquisition of Itron Electric Meters to be purchased from General Pacific at a firm price of
$61.35 each for a term of three (3) years?
4. Does the proposed budget meet the needs of the Mayor and Council for FYI0?
5. Will Council approve a resolution in support of a grant application for the 2009-2011
Transportation and Growth Management Grants of $225,000, and authorize match funds not to
exceed $125,000, and authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement?
Councilor Chapman requested that Consent Agenda item #4 be removed for discussion.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-3 and #5. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
City Administrator Martha Bennett briefly reviewed Consent Agenda item #4, which was the approval of the
proposed budget for the Mayor and Council. She explained that staff was recommending the budget be held to
the same standards as all other department budgets. Further explanation on public television coverage, travel
and expense amounts and costs associated with facilitators was provided.
Councilor VoisinlNavickas m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson voiced support for the basic budget. Councilor Lemhouse commented on
the importance of limiting spending. Councilor Navickas stated the value of Council training and the benefit of
interfacing with other Cities. Councilor Jackson also noted the importance of lobbying on behalf of the
community. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson and Silbiger, YES; Councilor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
- r I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17, 2009
Page 2 0[6
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Will Council approve the FYI0 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the overall FYI0-
15 CIP Program in concept, and the FYI0 Capital Equipment Plan?
Public Works Director Mike Faught presented the proposed FYI0 and FY15 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). His presentation included the CIP document containing a 6-year funding outlook for planned projects
based on availability of funds and projects identified in the Master Plans.
Further information was provided on the following: Availability of Funds, Federal Stimulus funded projects,
Master Plans, FY09 current year projects and highlights, FYI0 CIP proposed programs by Division.
Proposed projects were identified in Transportation, Local Improvement Districts, Storm Drain, Airport,
Water, Wastewater, Electric, Ashland Fiber Network (AFN)/Telecom/IT, Facilities & Parks and the Capital
Equipment Purchase Plan. Included were FYI0-15 CIP Plan and highlights for each of these divisions.
Mr. Faught explained projects listed in the "unfunded" category were important to keep in the plan although
funding was not identified at this time. Once funding was available, the projects on the CIP would be ready to
move forward. Staff would continue to look for funding sources for these projects.
Public Hearing Open: 7:50 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:50 p.m.
Councilor JacksonlLemhouse m/s to accept staff report and approve the following three items in the
Capital Improvement Program: proposed FYI0 Projects for Budget purposes, FYI0 Capital
Equipment Plan and FYI0-15 Overall CIP for planning purposes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
2. Will Council approve the proposed increases to the Water and Wastewater utility rates effective
April 20, 2009, to replace revenue shortfalls, fund operations and capital expenditures?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report. The presentation included
information on current external pressures, impacts resulting from decreased revenue streams, the forecast on
operations and capital implications. Charts were provided showing the comparison of operational ending Fund
balances for all divisions, with 30/0 revenue increases, Water and Wastewater total and ending Fund balances
projected with larger adjustments.
Revenue to expense issues was noted for the Water and Wastewater Funds. The Water Fund issues included
volume sales being flat going into third year, revenues flat or down despite rate increases, increase in operating
costs, debt service and internal costs. The needs of the Water Fund included restoring cash balances and
ability to meet obligations through rates and cost containment, system maintenance and repair or improvement
to the infrastructure when financing or funds are available.
The Wastewater Fund issues included decreased Food & Beverage tax proceeds, increasing rates will help but
are still insufficient to make up for tax reduction, increasing operating costs, and the cost of overhead and
internal costs. The needs of the Wastewater Fund included restoration of cash balances, meeting obligations
through Food & Beverage tax renewal, rates and cost containment, system maintenance and repair or
improvement of the infrastructure as needed when financing or funds are available.
The challenges identified included cash balances for restricted and non-restricted funds, funding for
improvements and repairs, meeting requirements, covenants and the variation of estimates by the time the
Budget is presented in April. Much is dependant upon tourism and weather, reduction in sales, meeting debt
service requirements and the possibility that short-term issues may remain for a year or two.
Mr. Tuneberg noted the Water fund pays $78,200 of the Technology Debt, $300,036 of the General Fund and
$84,000 of the Street Fund annually.
- r I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17, 2009
Page 3 of6
The monthly impact of a water rate increase on an average family of four would be $3.15; the wastewater rate
increase would be $3.50 for an average total impact of$6.65 per month depending on water consumption.
Staff recommended a 100/0 rate increase for Water and 200/0 for Wastewater to replace the drop in Food &
Beverage tax revenue and to help restore cash reserves used to fund projects.
Mr. Tuneberg further explained base and commodity charges and noted a rate study would better determine
these charges. Projections provided at the Study Session had been updated for this meeting. Mr. Tuneberg
added rate increases were designed to meet operational costs and reviewed annually. Different types of
bonding methods for funds were explained and the need to restore cash balances emphasized.
Public Hearing Open: 8:46 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:46 p.m.
City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified that each Resolution should include an effective date of April 20,
2009.
Councilor Navickas/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2009-07 revising rates for Water Service with
an effective date of April 20, 2009. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced concern with the increase
adding that projects cut from the CIP will cost more in the long term. Putting debt service to enterprise funds
causes the ratepayer to cover the debt through increased rates and he preferred the General Fund rely on
property taxes instead of rates or fees. He supported the concept of Full Faith and Credit Bonds. City
Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City would use Full Faith and Credit Bonds. Councilor
Navickas clarified the Technology Debt should be removed from the debt service utility funds. Councilor
Lemhouse understood the need to pay the debt and meet obligations and wanted to assure the public that the
Council and the City was doing everything possible to reduce costs. Councilor Jackson added this was a
mandatory public health concern and noted past rate increases. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,
Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger mls to approve Resolution #2009-08 revising rates for Wastewater (Sewer)
Service with an effective date of April 20, 2009. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Navickas,
Jackson, Voisin, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
It was noted there are programs available for Low Income Energy Assistance, Senior Citizen Discount and
Heat Donation Assistance for those struggling with monthly costs. Mr. Tuneberg explained how to apply for
these programs and some of the qualifications required. Director of Electric Utilities Dick Wanderschied
added that funds allocated for these programs are used. It was requested that the City advertise the programs
on the City website.
PUBLIC FORUM None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing
activities and agree to maintain staffing levels?
Police Chief Terry Holderness presented the staff report and explained the grant would come from the office of
Community Oriented Policing (COPS) and was part of the Federal Stimulus Package. The grant would pay
100% of the cost of the officer up to $ 7 5,000 a year for three years but required a commitment for the term of
the grant for the new position plus positions already established during the grant period and after the funding
ended.
- r I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17, 2009
Page 4 of6
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to direct the Police Department to apply for a COPS grant.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas could not support the grant considering the present and future economy.
He noted how the current commitment to maintaining the Parks and Recreation Department budget cut into
other areas and would rather maintain the Fire Department, emergency services and the Planning Department.
Councilor Lemhouse commented that statistics show understaffing a Police Department increases the violent
crime rate and this grant would help maintain the infrastructure.
Chief Holderness explained the current Central Area Patrol Officer (CAP) position would expand from four to
seven days a week and serve as back up for the day shift and swing shift overlap, respond to emergencies and
participate in programs in the community and schools. The position would extend beyond the four years due to
officers retiring in the near future.
Councilor Jackson sited a similar program that funded the School Resource Officer position and since the
funding ended, the department has been short staffed. She thought the City should take advantage of this
opportunity and supported community policing.
Councilor Navickas reiterated current budget concerns and cautioned on committing to a level of funding
during this time of unstable revenue sources. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson,
Voisin and Chapman, YES; Councilor Navickas, No. Motion passed 5-1.
2. Will Council Consider soliciting request for proposals for private uses for the "Imperatrice
Property"?
Public Works Director Mike Faught presented the staff report that included a brief history of the property. The
property was purchased using Food & Beverage Tax proceeds with the intent to apply the City's wastewater
services. Concern raised during the public process resulted in the City upgrading the Wastewater Plant and
improving the effluent from a Class 3 to a Class 4 at $34million.
The City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson that generated $11,000 per year in revenue for the
use of the property. The lease expired and never renewed although Mr. Anderson continues to use the property
on the same terms. Staff was contacted by individuals interested in submitting proposals to use the property
and wanted direction from the Council on a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to explore alternative uses for
the land. It was recommended that any use of the property leave the City the option to apply wastewater
effluent in order to address the effluent temperature issue.
Further clarification on including the property in the Master Plan was sought. Mr. Faught explained the RFP
would include protecting the effluent, any water quality issues and the existing oak groves on the property.
Christopher Iverson/765 Siskiyou BoulevardlExplained he is the founder and Project Co-director of the
Shambhala Eco-settlement on 466 acres ofland near the Oregon border in Siskiyou County. He is interested in
creating another eco-village on the Imperatrice property. The project would be sustainable and could
potentially create revenues of $10-20 million with residual annual income streams of several million more.
The project could be done with private money and the City would retain permanent ownership excluding the
individual 2.5 acres plots purchased as homes. The Eco-Settlement Shambhala is the only one established in
this bioregion. He asked the Council to extend the RFP process for the next 6-12 months and give his group
the time to present their business plan.
Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Thought this was the best time to bring forward ideas for the property and
asked the Council to receive RFP's for short-term agriculture use of the land. He requested that the proposals
for partial use of the property address shared use of roads and waters with Mr. Anderson for his herd and
grazing patterns.
The Council discussed the benefits of comparing the City's ideas with the private sector to determine the best
T I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17, 2009
Page 5 0[6
use of the property. Councilor Chapman read potential uses for the property from an earlier motion that
included preserving the area for recreation purposes, as farmland for agricultural purposes or future energy
generation.
Councilor VoisinlNavickas m/s to direct staff to draft an RFP for private use of the Imperatrice
property. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
3. Is the Council interested in creating a Transferable Development Credits (TDC) Program?
City Attorney Richard Appicello presented the staff report and recommendation by staff to initiate an
amendment to AMC Chapter 18 and comprehensive plan, if necessary, to create the TDC program. He
explained this would help achieve Council objectives, including infill and protection of desirable undeveloped
lands, such as City parklands and open space properties. He provided several examples and clarified the land
use process for disposing City owned property.
City Administrator Martha Bennett stated the downside to TDC would be concerns about density and that the
City might not use it not in a fair or consistent manner. Mr. Appicello was cautious about awarding density
bonuses within the City boundaries and thought it was more applicable within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). He described ways to keep development consistent with the City that included establishing minimum
standards in the development agreement statute, putting in a zoning district or creating a bank.
Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Noted he has followed TDC for over 30 years and was excited to see it
come to the Council. He explained the valley was 500/0 forested land, 300/0 farmland and 200/0 urban land. An
incremental model ofTDC within or outside the City limits was an important step to reconcile planning for the
population to double with the next generation. TDC was an exciting opportunity but the City should be
cautious as they moved forward.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve staff recommendation to create an amendment on the
TDC Program. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman was more interested in using transferrable rights to
protect farmland. Councilor Navickas did not think the TDC program was development neutral. He preferred
a more comprehensive look at up zoning; TDC seemed piecemeal and he was not comfortable having City land
use regulations that appeared up for grabs to less rigorous processes. Councilor Silbiger commented that parks
should not be used as a bank, the City should use density already established, define what to do, when, and
then codifY it. The process seemed goal oriented with positive benefits if structured correctly. Mayor
Stromberg thought the mechanism could be useful for the City but required real planning regarding its uses.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Voisin, YES; Councilor
Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Will the Council perform Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Authorizing
Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the 'Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving Agreement' for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Program, Providing for a
Process for Participants to Implement the Adopted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan"?
Mr. Appicello read the title in full.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #2980. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin
requested a report from Councilor Jackson regarding the City of Jacksonville's participation in the agreement.
It was relevant to Ashland because the Cities that voted for the current agreement will have to reconsider
another if the City of Jacksonville was not participating. Councilor Jackson questioned the relevancy to the
City and clarified that the City of Jacksonville and the Policy Committee chose their positions. The Participants
Agreement would go through the amendment process if it needed to be modified. Councilor Voisin reiterated
it was relevant because the City of Jacksonville had asked for changes in the plan and the Participants
Agreement. Mr. Appicello stated the record was closed, any changes to the Participants Agreement based on
- r I
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17, 2009
Page 60f6
the City of Jacksonville's participation or requesting changes would go through the land use process as an
amendment. Councilor Jackson explained the City of Jacksonville's position had not changed and the Policy
Committee tried to negotiate with the City of Jacksonville and did not receive a response. Mr. Appicello added
if there were an amendment to the draft plan, there would be a Public Hearing.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Navickas, Voisin and
Chapman, NO; Mayor Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
2. Should the Council conduct and approve the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19"?
Director of Electric Utilities Dick Wanderscheid explained the Council Liaison is both Chair and a voting
member in the Conservation Commission. The Commission recommended by a split vote that the Council
Liaison be a member only and not the Chair. Staff suggested amending the ordinance designating the Council
Liaison an ex-officio member. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the Commission was originally
created by resolution and staff was now proposing it be created by ordinance.
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full.
Councilor Jackson noted the last sentence in Section 2.18.030: "At its first meeting, the commission shall
elect a vice-chair...," should include". ..chair and vice-chair. ..." and Section 2.18.010 needed language that
designated a Council Liaison.
Councilor Silbiger suggested having five of the members reside within City limits would guarantee a majority.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve first reading of" An Ordinance Creating the Conservation
Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19 with suggested amendments and place on agenda for
second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Voisin, YES;
Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS None
City Administrator Martha Bennett gave a brief overview of the actions taken by the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor
T I
-r I
PROCLAMATION
"DONATE LIFE MONTH"
Each year the number of organs, eyes and tissues donated for transplant falls
increasingly short of the growing need.
Public Education about organ, eye and tissue donation is crucial because the number of
men, women and children in the United States waiting for an organ transplant is more
than 1 00,000.
2,200 people in the Pacific Northwest await an organ transplant, and thousands more
await a tissue or cornea transplant.
One organ, eye and tissue donor can save or enhance the lives of more than 50 people.
Even Burke of Ashland, Oregon saved three lives through organ donation, restored sight
to two people through cornea donation, and gave the gift of improved mobility to dozens
of others through tissue donation in March 2005.
All Oregonians have the power to donate life by signing up as organ, eye and tissue
donors.
All Oregonians at least 15 years old are encourage to sign up on the donor registry
with a "D" on their driver's license/permit or ID card, or going to
www.donatelifenw.org and to share their decision with their family.
Donate Life Northwest is a nonprofit agency whose mission is to save and enhance
lives through the promotion of organ, eye and tissue donors.
Donate Life Northwest will promote National Donate Life Month during April to
increase the number of Oregonians signed up as organ, eye and tissue donors.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of
Ashland, hereby proclaim April, 2009 as:
"Donate Life Month"
and encourage all Ashland residents to join in this observance.
Dated this ih day of April, 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Tree City USA Presentation
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
Community Develo ment E-Mail:
Planning Depart e t Secondary Contact:
Martha Benn Estimated Time:
Amy Anderson
andersona@ashland.or.us
Bill Molnar
10 minutes
Question:
The National Arbor Day foundation and its sponsor, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) have
announced that the City of Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA for the 24th consecutive
year.
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Background:
For the past 24 years the City of Ashland has meet the four criteria set forth by the National Arbor Day
Foundation. The four criteria include a tree care ordinance, establishment of a tree board or
commission, spending at least $2 per capita on a community tree care program and conducting an
Arbor Day or Arbor Week ceremony.
Related City Policies:
The Comprehensive Plan has a policy in the Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics Chapter 8.17which
states: "The City shall take necessary steps to annually be a Tree City, USA."
The City's ordinances related to this topic are the Street Tree Commission, Powers and Duties in
Chapter 2.25 of the Ashland Municipal Code and the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance in
Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
Council Options:
N/A
Potential Motions:
N/A
Attachments:
National Arbor Day Foundation - Award Letter
National Arbor Day Foundation - Press Release
Arbor Week Events - Press Release
Page 1 of 1
~~,
r I
@?) Arbor Day Foundation"
211 N. 12th St.. Lincoln. NE 68508. 888-448-7337. arborday.or~
lJe illspire people to pla"t. nurture, mId celebrate trees.
March 9, 2009
Martha Bennett
City Administrator
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ms. Bennett,
We congratulate Ashland on having achieved Tree City USA@ status for 2008-an
accomplishment that assures all your citizens of greater opportunities than they may yet realize!
As you already know, trees are a vital component of the infrastructure in cities and towns,
providing environmental and economical benefits. Trees in urban areas reduce the heat island
effect caused by pavement and buildings. Properly placed trees can increase property values.
Leaves filter the air we breathe by removing dust and other particles.
We have prepared the enclosed press release for your convenience as you prepare to
contact local media outlets to share this commendable achievement with the public. We hope
you are excited to share the significance of this accomplishment with the media. If you wish to
receive this press release in electronic form, please email mderowitsch@arborday.orQ. We will
send it to you within one work day.
The Tree City USA program is sponsored in cooperation with the National Association of
State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service. State foresters are responsible for the
presentation of the Tree City USA flag and other materials. We will forward your awards to Paul
D. Ries in your state foresters office. They will be coordinating the presentation with you. It
would be especially appropriate to make the Tree City USA award a part of your Arbor Day
ceremony.
Again, we celebrate your diligence in improving the quality of life for the citizens of Ashland
and thank you for creating a healthier, more sustainable world for us all.
Best regards,
~~
John Rosenow
Chief Executive
cc: Amy D. Anderson
Enclosure
~:f~~}~~~Y"I~l
-r I
For more information,
contact Mark Derowitsch,
Public Relations Manager, at
mderowitsch@arbordaV.ora
or call 888-448-7337.
News from
@?) Arbor Day Foundation.
211 N. 12th St. Lincoln, NE 68508. 888-448-7337. arbord~ly.org
We inspire people to pla1lt, 1Il1rtllre, and celebrate tn.>es.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Ashland Named Tree City USA@ by the Arbor Day Foundation
Ashland, OR has been named a Tree City USA community by the Arbor Day Foundation to
honor its commitment to community forestry.
It is the twenty-fourth year Ashland has received this national recognition.
The Tree City USA program is sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the
National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service.
Ashland has met the four standards to become a Tree City USA community: having a tree
board or department, a tree care ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program, and
an Arbor Day observance and proclamation.
Communities that receive Tree City USA recognition not only have taken the time to meet these
four standards, they recognize that:
. Trees promote healthier communities. Leaves filter the air we breathe by removing
dust and other particles.
. Trees moderate climate, conserve water and provide habitat for wildlife.
. Trees in urban areas reduce the heat island effect caused by pavement and buildings.
. Properly placed trees can increase property values, and buildings in wooded areas
rent more quickly and tenants stay longer.
UA community, its elected officials and its citizens that provide needed care for its trees deserves
recognition and thanks," said John Rosenow, chief executive of the Arbor Day Foundation.
uTrees are a vital component of the infrastructure in our cities and towns, and they also provide
environmental and economical benefits. Cities that are recognized with a Tree City USA
designation go to great lengths to plant and care for the community forest."
More information about Tree City USA can be found at www.arborday.orQlTreeCitvUSA.
About the Arbor Day Foundation
The Arbor Day Foundation is a nonprofit, environmental, an education organization of nearly
one million members, with a mission to inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees.
More information on the Foundation and its programs can be found at www_arborday_orq.
~1~~~1~~'Y~~K-L
-r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, PLEASE
DATE: March 26, 2009
CONTACT: Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
City of Ashland
552-2044
National Arbor Day is April 24, 2009. The State of Oregon celebrates Arbor Week during the first full
week in April, April 5th through the II tho
The City of Ashland Tree Commission has a number of events planned during April to celebrate Arbor
Week and Ashland's designation as a Tree City USA for the 24th consecutive year.
).;> Tuesday, April 7th 7:00 PM - 2008 Tree City USA Presentation by Oregon Department of
Forestry / Arbor Day Proclamation at the Ashland City Council Meeting.
,. Friday, April loth at 2:00 PM - 2008 Tree of the Year plaque installation for the Spanish Fir
located at 128 Wimer Street.
,. Saturday, April I! th from 2 PM to 4 PM - Informative Tree Walk at Southern Oregon
University. Sign up through Ashland Parks and Recreation Dept. North Mountain Nature Center
www.ashlandparksandrec.org or by phone 541.488.5340.
~ Saturday, April 25tb 11 AM to 4 PM - Tree Commission booth at the Earth Day Celebration,
y Ceremonial Arbor Day tree and Great Oregon Tree Plant planting at the Science Works Museum
during the Earth Day Festivities. Saturday, April 25th
This year's tree planting is even more special because the Bald Cypress that is to be planted at Science
Works is part of the statewide Great Oregon Tree Plant. In honor of Oregon's 150lh birthday, the Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) is coordinating 150 tree plantings from February 14th, the first day of
Statehood to Ashland's tree planting on Earth Day. "Planting trees is part of Oregon's legacy," says
ODF Urban Forester Paul Ries, "but this spring's tree planting events are extra special because so many
events are planned to honor Oregon's anniversary of statehood."
For more information about the Arbor Week activities planned during the month of April to celebrate
Arbor Week pleac;;e visit the City of Ashland web page, \vwv;.ashland.oLus. Or contact Amy Anderson,
Assistant Planner at andersona((i\ashland.or.us or 541.552.2044.
( end)
Community DeveJopment
20 East Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
WW'W.ashland.Ot.U5
TeL 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-6006
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 8, 2009
CALL TO ORDER -Chair John Rinaldi called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on January 8,2009 in
the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland,
OR.
Commissioners Present Council Liaison
Laurie Sager Kate Jackson
John Rinaldi Jr.
Zane Jones Staff Present
Bobby Townsend Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Anne Rich, Parks Department, Absent
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 6, 2008 Tree Commission Minutes - Jones/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of November 6, 2008. Voice vote:
all A YES, Motion passed. The minutes of October 9, 2008 were approved as presented.
November 21, 2008 Recommended Street Tree Guide special meeting minutes - Sager/Jones m/s to approve the minutes of
November 21,2008. Voice vote: all a yes, motion passed. The minutes of November 21,2008 were approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
Commissioner Rinaldi welcomed the new City Council liaison Kate Jackson and newly appointed Commissioner Bobby
Townsend.
TYPE I REVIEW:
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01953
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 260 N Laurel
APPLICANT: Nathan Sanford
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one eight-inch in diameter at breast height fruitless
mulberry tree. This site has a standing Site Review approval for the construction of two condominium units and the tree
removal is necessary to facilitate that development.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE
04CC TAX LOT #: 502
Recommendations:
1) Approved as submitted, no recommendations.
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01971
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 990 Siskiyou Blvd. (Southern Oregon University - Plunkett Center)
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit for to remove a 28-inch in diameter at breast height Blue Spruce
located near the northwest corner of the Plunkett Center.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE
10CC; TAX LOT #: 5700
Recommendations:
1) Approved as submitted, no recommendations.
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01853
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 West Nevada Street and 811 Helman Street
APPLICANT: Wilma, LLC (Greg & Valri Williams)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Final Plan approval for the development of Phase 1 of Verde Village which includes all public
improvements and infrastructure, riparian improvements, and the construction of the 24-unit cottage community and Lot 25.
The application includes requests for Site Review approval for the 24-unit cottage community, an Exception to Street
Standards to allow the installation of 114 feet of curbside sidewalk on the west side of Almeda Drive just north of the
.r I
intersection of Helman and Nevada Streets, and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to allow
Units 17 and 18 to have their primary orientation toward open space rather than to Almeda Drive.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and Suburban Residential ZONING: R-I-3.5, R-l-
5 and R-I-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP and TAX LOT#: 39 IE 04BB Lots 700,800, & 900 and 39 IE 04B 800 & 1100
Site Visits: All; No ex parte
Amy gave the staff report.
Applicant Discussion:
Kerry KenCaim spoke about the project street layout and design, the development of the riparian buffer corridor, the bioswale
parkrows and the requirements of the project developers the architects and the need to isolate the locations of the trees due to
the constraint of the solar aspects of the green development.
Tree Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Jones asked about the methodology during create a development you create a diverse forest and thought the
proposal would be very nice at implementation. He questioned the use of the river birch and Kerry responded that it is a tough
tree and it is not a native tree and that they have been bred to not have the negative impacts that the native birches are know to
have. The Commission discussed the use of the caging to protect the new vegetation. The landscape contractors have
responsibility for the survivability for the plants along the streets but not for situations they cannot control (deer). Kerry
discussed the cottages and how they limited the number of trees along the south side of their developments and that meant less
trees but they tried to provide more trees to shade the parking and driving surfaces.
Recommendations:
Approved as submitted moved by Townsend / second by Sager
Voice Vote: all A Yes
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Tree of the Year
Ballots - begin the voting process in September
Make a sign that gets staked into the ground
Write an article about the Tree nomination form available.
Tree inventory survey
Dorm Todt informed Anne Rich that there was an existing Street Tree Inventory. To update; maybe an SOU student intern
would be interested in expanding the existing inventory. Amy will find whatever exists and try to determine when it was
created.
Recommended Street Tree Guide
Commissioner Townsend did some research into trees that were thought to be difficult to obtain: Kentucky Coffee
available. Canyon Live Oak; make note - difficult to obtain. Raywood Ash; available, but not a good street tree-
from guide. Quercus Kellogi; Not available - remove from guide.
tree;
remove
Add: Bioswale parkrow street tree list; Betchula 'Nigra'
There was some discussion about the content of the guide - should all trees that are difficult to obtain be remove? The
Commission thought - no, even though its difficult to obtain they are still good trees and people should be encouraged to keep
asking for them. The more requests for a particular tree the more likely a nursery is to obtain them.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Liaison Reports
Anne has copy of the Parks and Recreation report. Copies will be available in February.
Amy will contact the Electric Department for their report - it does not need to be in writing it just needs to be done.
Old Business
Distinctive Tree List
Current Balance - $243.32
ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Rinaldi adjourned the meeting at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
2
. r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 5, 2009
CALL TO ORDER -Chair John Rinaldi called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. on February 5, 2009
in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present Council Liaison
Laurie Sager Kate Jackson (arrived at 7: 15 PM)
John Rinaldi Jr.
Zane Jones Staff Present
Bobby Townsend Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Anne Rich, Parks Department
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 9, 2009 Tree Commission Minutes - Rinaldi/Townsend m/s to approve the minutes of January 9, 2009. Voice vote:
all A YES, Motion passed. The minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
Nancy Appling - State of Oregon Heritage Tree Commission: Ms. Appling has been a local volunteer on Commission for past
6 years. They are looking for nominations of trees with 'state' significance. Putting together an association of Heritage Tree
Commissions - May 2 at Champoeg State Park - there will be a dedication of a Cottonwood that witnessed development of
state history. The objective is to put together a group to assist with mentoring the new commissions and assist with the
gathering of information for established groups. The Department of Tourism funds the State Heritage
Tree Commission. Locally there are Heritage Trees on Beal Rd. in Central Point; it is the 2nd oldest Black Walnut in country, at
the Peter Britt Gardens, a sequoia, and the Hanley Farm tree. Ms. Appling asked for the Tree Commission to give her some
feedback for things that work and things they would need help with so she can pass that information onto the State
Commission.
Electric Dept. Review: David Wood, Arborist for the Electric Department and Scott Johnson, Electric Operations
Superintendent. They explained the abbreviations on plans and that E = cabinet H = hanhole (underground services) T =
transformers. According to the Electric Dept. representatives they need to provide all of the vegetation pruning and removal
information to the Public Utility Commission so its creating the report for the Tree Commission is not an additional burden.
Commissioner Rinaldi asked about their awareness of Tree Line USA program through the National Arbor Day foundation.
Dave Wood explained that he often has to educate the public about their plantings and that city has to top conifer or evergreen
when under lines and that the Electric Department's hands are tied. Dave Wood prunes by taking the leaders, arborists remove
the laterals leaving him nothing to prune back too.
The Tree Commission suggested that the Electric Department host a Tree Pruning around Electrical Lines seminar or write
something that goes out to the different tree people in the valley. By law Arborist and tree trimmers cannot prune within 10-
feet of the line. Commissioners asked who has the authority to get arborist out of trees. The electric dept. can and OSHA will if
they are around.
TYPE II REVIEW:
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street
APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County
DESCRIPTION: A request for modification of the previously approved Planning Action #2004-00141 for the Willowbrook
Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential
affordable housing development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. A previously approved request for an Exception
to Street Standards to allow a portion of the sidewalk on Clay Street to be installed at curbside to accommodate a cedar tree on
the southwest comer of the site remains unchanged, and the application also includes a request for a tree removal permit to
remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where only eight trees were previously approved for
removal. (This property is owned jointly by the City of Ashland and the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The 2004
Annexation and Performance Standards Subdivision approval for Willowbrook Subdivision was for 107 residential units. The
required minimum density of the site can be met through future development of the remainder of the property.)
T I
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 39 IE l1C; TAX LOT #: 2500
Site Visits: Commissioner Sager recuesed herself. Site Visits by all. No exparte.
Amy gave the staff report.
Applicant Discussion:
Mark Knox -UBS
Kelly Gustafson - Laurie Sager and Associates
Jason Elzie - Jackson County Housing Authority
This project started out as a much larger project at one time has been reduced from 117 units to 60 units. A vast number of city
policies that dictated the design of the project and physical amenities/ constraints that affected design.
The proposed subdivision allows for future development of YMCA soccer fields. The existing house will also be on its own lot
which will also be in the ownership of the City of Ashland. The project is proposed to have bio-swale parkrows which will
storm water into filter wetlands then into natural wetlands. An overlook area near the wetland areas is being proposed. The
housing authority requires a building layout and design that provides a common area that can be monitored by the tenants.
Over 120 trees are proposed to mitigate the loss of the 12 trees proposed for removal. According to the applicant, it should be
noted that the large poplar trees were originally slated for removal by project arborist. Second design came back with another
arborist and the project was redesigned. Within the same year one of the trees proposed for preservation fell and nearly hit the
neighbor's home. A lot of the buzz in Ashland is that we need affordable, family, rental housing. And this project accomplishes
that. This project is designed to have kids on the site and having houses under the trees is very incompatible. The large poplar
trees have been maintained and were last pruned by an arborist in 2'006.
Commissioner Jones asked who would maintain the area around the house and the area with the preserved trees. The
applicant's responded that the Parks Department or another city department would be responsible, or another designee of the
City since it is their property.
Public Testimony:
Greg Gargus - 400 Clay Street
Spoke about the neighborhood petition to save the trees that was developed in 2004 and asked what could be done to bring that
back. He finds that taking out the one poplar tree sets a precedent to remove the other tree. There is lots of conflicting
information out there about poplars.
Tree Commission Discussion:
The Commissioners had some questions about the bios wale parkrow and who will maintain the wetlands. They wondered if
tree #23 be saved. It would be in the parkrow the applicant's agreed to save it possible.
Recommendations:
1) Tree Commission recommends preservation of the Black Oak (Quercus kelloggi) #23 and moving the sidewalk meander
between the Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) #1 and #23 to achieve critical root zone preservation of both trees.
That a revised Tree Protection and Preservation plan shall be submitted showing the modification.
2) Prune Poplar (Populus trichocarpa) #15 and the Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca') #11 to a safe manner prior
to the street installation.
3) Include electric vault and transformers on the final landscaping plan and be assured of the clearance required by the Public
Utility Commission and the City of Ashland Electric Department.
4) Provide a final irrigation plan prior to the submittal of the building permit to be reviewed and approved prior to the
issuance of the building permits.
5) Evaluate the use of the Washington Hawthorn in proximity to pedestrian gathering / traffic areas.
Voice Vote: Motion to approve Townsend / Jones.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Arbor Week Events
Arbor Week is April 5th - 11 th On April ih the Mayor will read the proclamation and the Commission will receive the Tree
City USA from Oregon Department of Forestry. The Tree of the Year winner plaque will be installed sometime during this
week. Amy will contact the property owner. On April 11 th Anne, Zane, Bobby and Casey from Upper Limb-it will be hosting a
tree walk through Southern Oregon University. Earthday is April 25th at ScienceWorks. The annual Tree Planting could take
place4 during the Earthday Event. Laurie will call Mark DiRienzo, the Director of ScienceWorks and Amy will contact the
2
r I
Earthday folks. Ashland Parks Department has a regular sized balled and burlaped Bald Cypress tree that needs to be planted. It
would be a good tree choice for that location. Steve Siewert would be a good resource for a 'planting seminar' at the Earthday
event.
Recommended Street Tree Guide
Meeting on Thursday, February 19,2009 in the Siskiyou Room at 51 Winburn Way.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Liaison Reports
Anne Rich provided the Lithia Park and outer Parks report of removals. Councilor Jackson about mitigation and whether that
information was included in the report, Anne said she could provide that list.
Interstate 1-5 Exit 14 & 19 Aesthetics Committee - John reported on the two meetings the group has had to date. Meeting on
Feb. 4th had good discussion about soft-scape. John stated that his thought was that the landscaping addressing the four seasons
of the Pacific Northwest would be a nice feature. Since it's the first official off-ramp there could be some great integration of
the hard and soft-scape. Themes to the bridge...
Mayor's monthly lunch meeting with Commission chairs. Mayor wants to capitalize on the GeoTourism and Ashland was #19
on the list. National Geographic is working on mapping it and Mayor wants find
Distinctive Tree Guide... If anyone wants to do the lunch -- Bobby Townsend Feb. 27 at
Student beginning to mapping - Distinctive trees / Tree of the Year winners.
Bobby thinking about going to the May 2 meeting.
Old Business
Distinctive Tree List - Zane working on list and Bobby would like to work with him on the list.
New Items:
Goal Setting - Laurie explained what has been done in the past with the board and creating the long list than short listing it.
At John's house on (Tuesday 24th 5:00 PM) - notice the paper.
Current Balance - $ 46.32
ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Rinaldi adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
3
.r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Liquor License Application
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benn Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb(~Dash land.of. us
None
Consent
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Helena Darling dba Palace Cafe
at 542 A Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this
app Ii cati on.
Background:
Application is for a change of ownership.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's
land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32).
Related City Policies:
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
r~'
.r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
A Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System for use in
Emergency Situations
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
April 7, 2009
Fire
None
Martha Benne
Margueritte Hickman
hickmanm@.ashland.or.us
Larry Langston
5 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council wish to adopt, a resolution titled, ""A Resolution Adopting the National Incident
Management System for Use in Emergency Situations?"
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the adoption of this resolution.
Background:
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a comprehensive, nationwide, systematic
approach to incident management and establishes principles that promote interoperability within
communications and information management and standard procedures for resource management.
NIMS can be applied to all emergency and non-emergency incidents regardless of size and number of
resources.
The City of Ashland applies NIMS daily in responses to routine emergency incidents and utilizes
NIMS in large scale emergency operations as demonstrated in the City of Ashland Emergency
Management Plan. NIMS is utilized in all disaster exercises in which the City of Ashland participates.
In order to utilize NIMS, City personnel and volunteers have been trained to at least the minimum
required levels.
As a Department of Homeland Security requirement to continue to receive grants, the formal adoption
ofNIMS is required. This adoption will not change the practices currently implemented by the city.
There is no fiscal impact created by this adoption; however, failure to adopt NIMS will result in the
inability to continue to obtain grants through the Department of Homeland Security. Federal grants
have been used in the past to obtain a wildland engine, firefighter protective gear and portable radios.
Ashland CER T materials and services budget and a half-time position continues to be funded through
these grant dollars.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Emergency Management Plan
Council Options:
Adopt this resolution.
Page 1 of 2
r~'
-r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Motion to adopt resolution.
Attachments:
Resolution
NIMS Fact Sheet
NIMS Document is a 170 page document available on the FEMA website as follows and a hard copy is
available at Ashland Fire & Rescue Station 1 for review.
http://www .fema. gov /pdf/ emergency/nims/NIMS core. pdf
Page 2 of2
r~'
. r I
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-_
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR USE IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Recitals:
A. On March 1, 2004 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS) as the consistent
nationwide approach to managing domestic incidents.
B. In Fiscal Year 2008, the federal government began requiring state and local agencies to adopt
NIMS to receive federal preparedness assistance funds, such as grants from the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), and Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI).
C. NIMS adopted the ICS; therefore, by adopting NIMS the City will automatically adopt the ICS.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Adoption of NIMS. The City adopts the National Incident Management System, as
referenced in the 156 page NIMS Document available on the FEMA website. The document is
available at: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/
NIMS_core.pdf.
SECTION 2. NIMS provides the following:
A. Standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities and resources to
improve the City's ability to coordinate responders from multiple disciplines and levels of
government using common-doctrine, terminology, concepts and principles.
B. A comprehensive approach applicable across a full spectrum of potential incidents and hazard
scenarios, regardless of size or complexity.
C. Standardized organizational structures for processes, procedures and systems designed to
improve interoperability.
D. Training standards for all personnel who could be involved in a response to minimum
proficiency standards.
E. A standard system for maintaining an appropriate span of control throughout the ICS
organization.
F. Facilitation of the steps required for compliance of the NIMS and ICS systems in order for the
City of Ashland to continue to apply for and receive federal preparedness and assistance
funds.
SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
,2009, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
. r I
Homeland
Securi ty
National Incident Management System (NIMS)
Fact Sheet
What is the National Incident Management System?
. Comprehensive, nationwide systematic approach to incident management
. Core set of doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology and organizational processes for
all hazards
. Essential principles for a common operating picture and interoperability of
communications and information management
. Standardized resource management procedures for coordination among different
jurisdictions and organizations
. Scalable and applicable for all incidents
Key benefits of NIMS
. Enhances organizational and technological interoperability and cooperation
. Provides a scalable and flexible framework with universal applicability
. Promotes all-hazards preparedness
. Enables a wide variety of organizations to participate effectively in emergency
management/incident response
. Institutionalizes professional emergency management/incident response practices
NIMS Audience:
NIMS is applicable to all incidents and all levels of stakeholders, including levels of
government, private sector organizations, critical infrastructure owners and operators,
nongovernmental organizations and all other organizations who assume a role in emergency
management. Elected and appointed officials and policy makers, who are responsible for
jurisdictional policy decisions, must also have a clear understanding of NIMS to better serve
their constituency.
NIMS Components:
Built on existing structures, such as the Incident Command System (ICS), NIMS creates a
proactive system to assist those responding to incidents or planned events. To unite the
practice of emergency management and incident response throughout the country, NIMS
focuses on five key areas, or components. These components link together and work in unison
to form a larger and comprehensive incident management system.
NIMS Components include:
. Preparedness
. Communications and Information Management
. Resource Management
. Command and Management
. Ongoing Management and Maintenance
r I
-more-
What NIMS is NOT
. A response plan
. Only used during large-scale incidents
. Only applicable to certain emergency management/incident response personnel
. Only the Incident Command System (ICS) or an organizational chart
For further information on the NIMS see the DHSjFEMA website at www.fema.govjnims.
###
-r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Authorization to Sign a Revised OWRD Grant Agreement
Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 488-5587
Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Nancy Slocum 552-2420
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council authorize the City Administrator to sign a revised Oregon Water Resources Department
Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant agreement in the alTIount of $111 ,256?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council authorize the City AdlTIinistrator to sign a revised Oregon Water Resources
Department Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant agreement in the amount of $111 ,2567
Background:
The '"Right Water for Right Use Program" is listed in the current budget's Capital Improvement
Project list and is a high priority for staff, the Council and the citizens of Ashland. The next step for
this program is the development of a comprehensive planning study to identify all potential water
sources including reuse or recycled water while also identifying where each water source has the
highest and best use. The cost for the study is estimated at $450,000.
In August of 2008 the Public Works Department submitted an application for an Oregon Water
Resources Department (OWRD) sponsored grant in the amount of $225,000. (The grant program
required a 1: 1 match.) After OWRD's evaluation process and 50/0 state budget cuts, Ashland
received a grant in the amount of $160,419. On January 20, 2009 Council accepted the Oregon
Water Resources Department (OWRD) Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant in the amount
of $160,419 and authorized the City Administration to sign the grant agreement.
While the grant agreement was being reviewed by the State Attorney General we received notice that,
because of the state's budget shortfall for the 2007-09 biennium, the Legislature needed to reduce the
OWRD's budget yet again. The City of Ashland's grant amount was reduced in March to $111,256.
This action would allow the City Administrator to sign the revised contract.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
1. The Council may authorize the City Administrator to sign the revised grant agreement from the
Oregon Water Resources Department.
2. The Council may refuse grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department.
Page 1 0[2
r.l'
1 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
1. Council moves to authorize the City Administrator to sign the revised grant agreement from the
Oregon Water Resources Department.
2. Council moves to refuse grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department.
l\ttachments:
None.
Page 2 of2
r~'
r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements for ARRA Stimulus Transportation
Projects
Primary Staff Contact:
enng E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
April 7, 2009
Public W orks/Engi
Legal
Martha Benn
James Olson / 552-2412
o lsoni@ashland.or.us
Mike Faught / 552-2411
Consent Agenda
Question:
Will Council approve two intergovernmental agreements (IGA) with Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) to fund two American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) public works
projects?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the two AGA's to fund two separate public works projects.
Background:
In January of this year, the City joined with many other agencies in competing for federal money
offered through various ARRA funding grants and loans. On January 20, 2009, Council received a list
of city-wide projects that could possibly be constructed within the time frame specified by the ACT.
The list totaled $20,464,000 and included $2,878,000 worth of transportation projects.
All ARRA transportation projects are administered through ODOT, with funds allocation determined
by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), of which the city is a member.
On February 19,2009, the RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met to determine how best
to allocate the $2,756,752 which was approved for distribution among the agencies comprising the
RVMPO. The TAC ultimately recommended that 50 percent of the total funds be allocated equally to
each agency and the remaining 50 percent be allocated based upon population. Based upon this
distribution strategy, Ashland will receive $438,791 for transportation projects.
Use of Federal funds requires that all reviews, stipulations and approvals normally attached to federal
aid projects be strictly adhered to. As the environmental review process is often complicated and can
take up to a year to complete, it was determined that only projects that do not require extensive
environmental review could meet the timelines established by the ARRA. The projects that could best
fit this condition are maintenance projects, or I-R projects as referred to in Federal standards.
Through the RVMPO, it was further determined thatthe agencies of Ashland, Central Point, Eagle
Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Jackson County would all receive funding to
overlay existing streets within their respective jurisdictions. The following allocations were
recommended:
Ashland $438,791 Jacksonville $238,500 Phoenix $261,900
Central Point $392,787 Medford $1,027,699 Jackson County $1,172,795
Eagle Point $303,787 Talent $280,835 ODOT $2,000,000
Page 1 of 4
~~,
'1 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Under the original application, Ashland had submitted proposals to overlay 5 City street including:
a. North Laurel Street - N. Main Street to Railroad
b. Iowa Street - Wightman Street to S. Mountain Avenue
c. Nevada Street - Vansant Street to Michelle Avenue
d. Nutley Street - Scenic Drive to Granite Street
e. Helman Street - N. Main Street to Ohio Street.
The application for these five streets totaled $700,700 and it was necessary to reduce the project load
to meet the funds available. Funding for the first three streets was approved as follows:
a. North Laurel Street - $125,797
b. Iowa Street - $173,497
c. Nevada Street - $139.497
$438,791
The remaining two projects will be included as alternatives should construction bids be returned less
than anticipated and/or if additional funds should become available.
Proiect Next Steps
Since all agencies elected to use similar street overlay projects, it was possible to "bundle" several
required efforts including selection of an engineering consultant to handle the preliminary and
construction engineering for the projects. To meet that requirement, Jackson County advertised a
request for proposal (RFP) for engineering services for the design and implementation of the street
overlay projects. The beneficiaries of the RFP included all of the cities within the MPO. On March
23, 2009, Jackson County received four proposals from qualified (ODOT certified) engineering
consultants. On March 24th, the City was provided copies of the proposal which staff promptly
reviewed and evaluated. The three person evaluation team scored the proposals as follows:
Firm Score Rank
OBEC 231 1
WH Pacific 215 2
Otak 211 3
DEA 207 4
The results of the evaluation were transmitted to ODOT and the City, and ODOT will soon begin
negotiations with OBEC to arrive at an agreeable price for their services. The RFP's were submitted to
allow flexibility in the number and type of project to be included under the contract, as well as in the
contracting agency so that projects could be developed individually or collectively.
120 Dav Allocation
At its February 27,2009 special meeting, the Oregon Transportation Commission approved $122.6
million in transportation projects and deferred another $68 until March, and opened a process to allow
other jurisdictions to compete for projects that can obligate federal funds within 120 days to provide
jobs this summer. On March 9th, the City made an application for $200,000 of the 120 day allocation
of funds to re-construct the sidewalk on Hersey Street from Oak Street to Ann Street.
Page 2 of 4
r~'
. r I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ashland was the only city in the RVMPO to be awarded the 120 day allocation of funds. Acceptance
of this grant, however, places a burden on the City to deliver not only the 120 day project, but the
overlay project at an accelerated schedule.
The terms of the 120 day allocation project require that the project be approved and ready to meet a
June 18, 2009 bid opening date, and that the overlay project is fully obligated by June 29, 2009.
Failure to meet these deadlines may cause the City to forfeit the $200,000 grant for the sidewalk re-
construction. These time lines are difficult, but not impossible to meet. Staffhas allocated the
resources necessary to meet this schedule; however, much of the schedule is dependent upon ODOT
actions, reviews, approvals and schedules.
Using the consultant selection process already in place for the overlay project, staffhas also selected
OBEC to do the necessary re- formatting of the existing plans and specifications for the sidewalk re-
construction project. As with all federally funded transportation projects, bidding and contract
administration will be by ODOT and must be in their approved format and on their forms. The
existing plans and specifications prepared for the City by Marquess and Associates (MAl) must be
revised to address ODOT requirements and must reflect a contract with ODOT rather than with the
City. Since MAl is not an ODOT certified consultant, it was necessary to select one of the five firms
certified by ODOT to prepare these documents. OBEC is a certified consultant and has agreed to meet
the fast track schedule required of the grant. The cost for this work is $23,000 which is not
reimbursable from federal funds.
The accelerated schedule for these two projects will not allow the City to "bundle" the overlay projects
with those projects that will be developed and bid jointly with Jackson County. This situation does
have some positive impacts in that the Ashland projects will be the first to bid and will take advantage
of a full summer of construction availability. It will also mean that the bidding environment early in
the summer will ensure a more competitive mix of bidders.
Inten!overnmental A2reements (lGA)
In connection with both grants, it will be necessary to enter into a separate IGA with ODOT for both
projects. The IGA's which will be prepared by ODOT were not available at the time of this
communication, but hopefully will be available before the council meeting.
It is anticipated that the IGA's will be very similar to the attached draft and will detail exactly how
monies are to be used and the timelines which apply, and will require the Mayor's signature.
Related City Policies:
The City, through its City council, is empowered to enter into agreements with other governmental
agencies regarding acceptance of federal funds, other grants, or other offers.
Council Options:
. Council may approve IGA's for both the street overlay project and the sidewalk reconstruction
project.
. Council may approve the IGA for the overlay project, but reject the IGA for the sidewalk
reconstruction proj ect.
Page 3 of 4
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
. Move to approve IGA's for both the street overlay and the sidewalk reconstruction projects.
. Move to approve the IGA for the street overlay project only.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity maps
2. Draft IGA form
Page 4 of 4
r.,
z
o
.~
~
u
::J
o~ ~ ~
""Z~:3 ~
o ~~ S ~ ~
>-...J ~ ag~~
... "'r"'C >- ~ E-< ....:l
_ ""- E-< U U <(
Vt/)as ~~~
~ ~ ~~~
o ~
u u:I
~ ~
~ ~ 0
Q ~
re ~
\1
c> (
'1' 1
:8
-<
~
o
Q 0
~ ~
QO p... U
IIoZ~:g ~
O~ ~ ~c:~
>- .J 21 ::;S ~ :><
... .,.. 1: ~ ~ j
_~.... UU~
UV) ~ 58a~
,.r> ~g:~
~ 0 ~
~ ga
~ f-4
~ C/j
tJ,.:l
~
o
~~~:
~~ ~
~"i~ 'i
~~~~ ~
!.!~lil
6~~~
'1 I
Misc. Contract & Agreement
No. <( IGA>)
LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
<<Project Name STIP formab}
<<AGENCY Name for IGA))
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON,
acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as
"State," and the <<AGENCY Name for IGA)), acting by and through its elected officials,
hereinafter referred to as "Agency" and collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
1. <<ROAD STREET Name)) is a part of the ((RoadStreet SYSTEM}) system under
the jurisdiction and control of Agency.
2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and
366.576, state agencies may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities
and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of
improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually
agreeable to the contracting parties.
3. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, hereinafter referred to as
the "ARRAn, provides funding for job preservation and creation, infrastructure
investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and state
and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
4. The ARRA provides each state an allocation of ARRA funds for cities, counties and
metropolitan areas.
NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals,
it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1. Under such authority, State and Agency agree to
<<Project DESCRIPTION for IGA)), hereinafter referred to as "Project." The Project
will consist of . The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the
detailed map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," and by this reference made a part
hereof.
2. The Project shall be conducted as a part of the ARRA Program under Title 23,
United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at ((Total COST)), which is
I Key No. <<Kev ))
. r I
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA>>
subject to change. ARRA Program funds for this Project shall be limited to
<<ARRA for proiecb). The Project will be financed with ARRA funds at 100
percent of the maximum allowable federal participating amount. Agency will not be
required to provide a match for the ARRA funds but will be responsible for any non-
participating costs, including all costs in excess of the available federal funds. No
ARRA funded invoices will be accepted and no ARRA funded payments will be made
after September 30, 2015.
3. The federal funding for this Project is contingent upon approval by the FHWA and
receipt of federal funds by State. Any work performed prior to "authorization" (also
called obligation of funds) by FHWA or outside the scope of work will be considered
non-participating and paid for at Agency expense.
4. State considers Agency a subrecipient of the federal funds it receives as
reimbursement under this Agreement. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) number and title for this Project is 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction.
5. Agency shall place signs that identify Project as "American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009" (State approved design). Agency may affix additional
signage that identifies local funds used for the Project. --------
6. Agency shall report to State the required reporting data by federal and state
mandates for delivery of the ARRA program. State shall inform the local agencies of
the reporting requirements once they have been received from FHWA and the
Department of Administrative Services and such requirements shall be made a part
of this Agreement.
7. The term of this Agreement will begin upon execution and will terminate upon
completion of the Project and final payment or September 30, 2015, whichever is
sooner. No work can begin on this Project until Agency receives a Notice To Proceed
from State's Local Agency Liaison.
8. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both Parties.
9. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to
Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the
following conditions:
a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the
time specified herein or any extension thereof.
2
'r I
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA>>
b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement,
or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this
Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written
notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or
such longer period as State may authorize.
c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project.
d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other
expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its
reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for
performance of this Agreement.
e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or
interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is
prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the
planned funding source.
10. Because of the ARRA funding requirements, Agency must advance the Project for
obligation of funds prior to March 1, 2010; and State must make a determination no
later than December 31, 2009 whether this date will be met. Therefore, if the
Project has not advanced to the point of being in the State's "Plans, Specification
and Estimates" (PS&E) process by December 31,2009, the Project will be reviewed
by State, in coordination with the Oregon Local Program Committee. If State
determines that the ARRA funds will not be, or are unlikely to be, obligated for
construction prior to March 1, 2010, State may terminate this Agreement effective
upon delivery of written notice to Agency, allowing the funds to be distributed to
another project at State's discretion; and State shall have no obligation to replace
the ARRA funds with other state or federal funds.
11. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations
accrued to the Parties prior to termination.
12. The Special and Standard Provisions attached hereto, marked Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively, are by this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions
apply to all federal-aid projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions.
The Parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and conditions set forth in
Attachments 1 and 2. In the event of a conflict, this Agreement shall control over the
attachments, and Attachment 1 shall control over Attachment 2.
13. Agency, as a recipient of federal funds, pursuant to this Agreement with State, shall
assume sole liability for Agency's breach of any federal statutes, rules, program
requirements and grant provisions applicable to the federal funds, and shall, upon
3
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA>>
Agency's breach of any such conditions that requires State to return funds to the
Federal Highway Administration, hold harmless and indemnify State for an amount
equal to the funds received under this Agreement; or if legal limitations apply to the
indemnification ability of Agency, the indemnification amount shall be the maximum
amount of funds available for expenditure, including any available contingency funds
or other available non-appropriated funds, up to the amount received under this
Agreement.
14.Agency certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has
been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Agency,
under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers,
members or representatives, and to legally bind Agency.
15. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all
of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties,
notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each
copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original.
16. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the
Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or
representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No
waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either
Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have
been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be
effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure
of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by
State of that or any other provision.
THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that each Party
has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and
conditions.
This Project is amended into the 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program, Key No. <<Kev )) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation
Commission on November 14, 2007 or will subsequently be approved by amendment to
the STIP.
The Oregon Transportation Commission on December 29,2008, approved Delegation
Order No.2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day-
to-day operations. Day-to-day operations include those activities required to implement
the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project
in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
4
Agency/State
Agreement No. (( IGA>>
On September 15, 2006, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation
approved Subdelegation Order No.2. Paragraph 1, in which authority is delegated to
the Deputy Director, Highways. to approve and sign agreements over $75,000 when the
work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program.
((AGENCY Name for IGA>>. by and
through its elected officials
STATE OF OREGON, by and through
its Department of Transportation
By
By
Deputy Director, Highways
Date
By
Date
Date
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
By
Local Government Section Manager
By
Agency Counsel
Date
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
Agency Contact:
<<Local Contact NAME)).
<<Local Contact TITLE>>
<<Local Contact ADDRESS>)
<<Local Contact CITY)>,
<<Local Contact STATE ZIP))
(<Local Contact EMAIL))
<<Local Contact PHONE))
By
Assistant Attorney General
Date:
State Contact:
<(State Contact NAME TITLE>>
<<State Contact ADDRESS>>
<(State Contact CITY>>,
<<State Contact STATE ZIP>>
<<State Contact EMAIL>>
<<&~e Co~act PHONE>>
5
'1 I
ATTACHMENT NO.1 to Agreement No. <dGA>>
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. Agency or its consultant shall, as a federal-aid participating preliminary engineering
function, conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic
investigations, foundation explorations, and hydraulic studies, identify and obtain all
required permits, assist State with acquisition of necessary right of way and/or
easements, and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to
produce final plans, preliminary/final specifications and cost estimates.
2. Upon State's award of the construction contract, Agency, or its consultant, shall be
responsible to perform all construction engineering, field testing of materials,
technical inspection and project manager services for administration of the contract.
3. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal services
consultant to perform any work covered under this Agreement, Agency and
Consultant shall enter into a Personal Services Contract approved by State's Chief
Procurement Officer or designee (Salem). Said contract must be reviewed and
approved by State's Chief Procurement Officer or designee prior to beginning any
work. This review includes, but is not limited to the Request for Proposal, Statement
of Work, advertisement and all contract documents. This review and approval is
required to ensure federal reimbursement.
I 4. State may make available Region ((Reaion))'s On-Call Preliminary Engineering
(PE), Design and Construction Engineering Services consultant for Local Agency
Projects upon written request. If Agency chooses to use said services, Agency
agrees to manage the work performed by the Consultant and reimburse State for
payment of any Consultant costs that are not eligible as federal participating costs or
that are not included as part of the total cost of the Project.
5. Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within two (2) years from the
end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction contract for
preliminary engineering (PE) and 2) third notification for construction. Partial billing
(progress payment) shall be submitted to State within one (1) year from the date that
costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after two (2) years shall not be eligible for
reimbursement. No ARRA funding will be available for project reimbursement after
September 30, 2015. State shall not be responsible to provide additional funding to
Agencies that do not have final billings processed before this date.
6. If Agency overlays a bridge, Agency shall either (a) load rate a bridge when adding
two (2) inches of pavement to an existing bridge deck to determine if the capacity of
the bridge or (b) remove 2-inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) from the bridge deck
and then place 2-inches back for a zero net gain of Asphalt Concrete (in-Iay/over-
7
'1 I
lay) on the bridge deck. Agency shall then sawcut the new AC pavement at the
bridge ends and fill with poured joint filler to account for bridge movement.
7. Agency shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate the Project upon completion
and throughout the useful life of the Project at a minimum level that is consistent
with normal depreciation and/or service demand. State and Agency agree that the
useful life of this Project is defined as {<Desion LIFE>> calendar years. State may
conduct periodic inspections during the life of the Project to verify that Project is
properly maintained and continues to serve the purpose for which federal funds
were provided. Maintenance and power responsibilities shall survive any termination
of this Agreement.
8
'1' 1
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA})
ATTACHMENT NO.2
STANDARD PROVISIONS
JOINT OBLIGATIONS
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1. State (ODOT) is acting to fulfill its responsibility to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) by the administration of this Project, and Agency (i.e. county, city, unit of local
government, or other state agency) hereby agrees that State shall have full authority to
carry out this administration. If requested by Agency or if deemed necessary by State in
order to meet its obligations to FHWA, State will further act for Agency in other matters
pertaining to the Project. Agency shall, if necessary, appoint and direct the activities of a
Citizen's Advisory Committee and/or Technical Advisory Committee, conduct a hearing and
recommend the preferred alternative. State and Agency shall each assign a liaison person
to coordinate activities and assure that the interests of both parties are considered during all
phases of the Project.
2. Any project that uses federal funds in project development is subject to plans, specifications
and estimates (PS&E) review and approval by FHWA or State acting on behalf of FHWA
prior to advertisement for bid proposals, regardless of the source of funding for
construction.
PRELIMINARY & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
3. State, Agency, or others may perform preliminary and construction engineering. If Agency
or others perform the engineering, State will monitor the work for conformance with FHW A
rules and regulations. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal
services consultant to perform any work covered by this Agreement. Agency and Consultant
shall enter into a State reviewed and approved personal services contract process and
resulting contract document. State must concur in the contract prior to beginning any work.
State's personal services contracting process and resulting contract document will follow
Title 23 Code of Federal Reaulations (CFR) 172, Title 49 CFR 18, ORS 279A.055, the
current State Administrative Rules and State Personal Services Contracting Procedures as
approved by the FHWA. Such personal services contract(s) shall contain a description of
the work to be performed, a project schedule, and the method of payment. Subcontracts
shall contain all required provisions of Agency as outlined in the Agreement. No
reimbursement shall be made using federal-aid funds for any costs incurred by Agency or
its consultant prior to receiving authorization from State to proceed. Any amendments to
such contract(s} also require State's approval.
4. On all construction projects where State is the signatory party to the contract, and where
Agency is doing the construction engineering and project management, Agency, subject to
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
9
'1' I
Agency/State
Agreement No. (< IGA>>
any limitations imposed by state law and the Oregon Constitution, agrees to accept all
responsibility, defend lawsuits, indemnify and hold State harmless, for all tort claims,
contract claims, or any other lawsuit arising out of the contractor's work or Agency's
supervision of the project.
REQUIRED STATEMENT FOR United States Department of Transportation
(US DOT) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
5. If as a condition of assistance, Agency has submitted and the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative
Action Program which Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is
incorporated into the financial assistance agreement by reference. That program shall be
treated as a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation
of the financial assistance agreement. Upon notification from USDOT to Agency of its
failure to carry out the approved program, USDOT shall impose such sanctions as noted in
Title 49. CFR. Part 26, which sanctions may include termination of the agreement or other
measures that may affect the ability of Agency to obtain future USDOT financial assistance.
6. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Obligations. State and its contractor agree
to ensure that DBE as defined in Title 49. CFR. Part 26, have the opportunity to participate
in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal
funds. In this regard, Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in
accordance with Title 49. CFR. Part 26, to ensure that DBE have the opportunity to
compete for and perform contracts. Neither State nor Agency and its contractors shall
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance
of federally-assisted contracts. Agency shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49.
CFR. Part 26, in the award and administration of such contracts. Failure by Agency to carry
out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the
termination of this contract or such other remedy as State deems appropriate.
7. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into
under this Agreement.
8. Agency agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights laws, rules and regulations,
including Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
9. The parties hereto agree and understand that they will comply with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work
including, but not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279C.505. 279C.515. 279C.520.
279C.530 and 279B.270. incorporated herein bv reference and made a part hereof: Title 23
CFR Parts 1.11.140.710. and 771: Title 49 CFR Parts 18. 24 and 26: OMB CIRCULAR
NO. A-a7 and NO. A-133 Title 23. USC. Federal-Aid Hiahwav Act: Title 41. Chapter 1. USC
51-58. Anti-Kickback Act: Title 42 USC: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acauisition Policv Act of 1970. as amended and provisions of Federal-Aid Policv Guide
(FAPG).
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
10
Agency/State
Agreement No. <dGA>}
STATE OBLIGATIONS
PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST
10. State shall submit a Project funding request to FHWA with a request for approval of federal-
aid participation in all engineering, right-of-way acquisition, eligible utility relocations and/or
construction work for the Project. No work shall proceed on any activity in which
federal-aid participation is desired until such approval has been obtained. The
program shall include services to be provided by State, Agency, or others. State shall notify
Agency in writing when authorization to proceed has been received from FHWA. Major
responsibility for the various phases of the Project will be as outlined in the Special
Provisions. All work and records of such work shall be in conformance with FHWA rules
and regulations.
FINANCE
11. State shall, in the first instance, pay all reimbursable costs of the Project, submit all claims
for federal-aid participation to FHWA in the normal manner and compile accurate cost
accounting records. Agency may request a statement of costs to date at any time by
submitting a written request. When the actual total cost of the Project has been computed,
State shall furnish Agency with an itemized statement of final costs. Agency shall pay an
amount which, when added to said advance deposit and federal reimbursement payment,
will equal 100 percent of the final total actual cost. Any portion of deposits made in excess
of the final total costs of Project, minus federal reimbursement, shall be released to Agency.
The actual cost of services provided by State will be charged to the Project expenditure
account(s) and will be included in the total cost of the Project.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
12. State shall, if the preliminary engineering work is performed by Agency or others, review
and process or approve all environmental statements, preliminary and final plans,
specifications and cost estimates. State shall, if they prepare these documents, offer
Agency the opportunity to review and approve the documents prior to advertising for bids.
13. The party responsible for performing preliminary engineering for the Project shall, as part of
its preliminary engineering costs, obtain all Project related permits necessary for the
construction of said Project. Said permits shall include, but are not limited to, access, utility,
environmental, construction, and approach permits. All pre-construction permits will be
obtained prior to advertisement for construction.
14. State shall prepare contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals, and award
all contracts.
15. Upon State's award of a construction contract, State shall perform independent assurance
testing in accordance with State and FHWA Standards, process and pay all contractor
progress estimates, check final quantities and costs, and oversee and provide intermittent
inspection services during the construction phase of the Project.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
11
Agency/State
Agreement No. <( IGA)>
16. State shall, as a Project expense, assign a liaison person to provide Project monitoring as
needed throughout all phases ot Project activities (preliminary engineering, right-ot-way
acquisition, and construction). The liaison shall process reimbursement for federal
participation costs.
RIGHT OF WAY
17. State is responsible for proper acquisition of the necessary right of way and easements for
construction and maintenance of the Project. Agency may perform acquisition of the
necessary right of way and easements for construction and maintenance of the Project,
provided Agency (or Agency's consultant) are qualified to do such work as required by the
State's Right of Way Manual and have obtained prior approval from State's Region Right of
Way office to do such work.
18. Regardless of who acquire~ or performs any of the right of way activities, a right of way
services agreement shall be created by State's Region Right of Way office setting forth the
responsibilities and activities to be accomplished by each party. State shall always be
responsible for requesting project funding, coordinating certification of the right of way, and
providing oversight and monitoring. Funding authorization requests for federal right of way
funds must be sent through the State's Region Right of Way offices on all projects. All
projects must have right of way certification coordinated through State's Region Right of
Way offices (even for projects where no federal funds were used for right of way, but
federal funds were used elsewhere on the Project). Agency should contact the State's
Region Right of Way office for additional information or clarification.
19. State shall review all right of way activities engaged in by Agency to assure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Agency agrees that right of way activities shall be in
accord with the Uniform Relocation Assistance & Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, ORS Chapter 35, FHWA Federal-Aid Policy Guide, State's Right of
Way Manual and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 710 and Title 49, Part 24.
20. If any real property purchased with federal-aid participation is no longer needed for the
originally authorized purpose, the disposition of such property shall be subject to applicable
rules and regulations, which are in effect at the time of disposition. Reimbursement to State
and FHWA of the required proportionate shares of the fair market value may be required.
21. Agency insures that all Project right of way monumentation will be conducted in
conformance with ORS 209.155.
22. State and Agency grants each other authority to enter onto the other's right of way for the
performance of the Project.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
12
Agency/State
Agreement No. (< IGA>)
AGENCY OBLIGATIONS
FINANCE
23. Federal funds shall be applied toward Project costs at the current federal-aid matching ratio,
unless otherwise agreed and allowable by law. Agency shall be responsible for the entire
match amount, unless otherwise agreed to and specified in the intergovernmental
agreement. If federal funds are used, Agency will specify the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number in the Agreement. Agency will also determine and clearly state
in the Agreement if recipient is a subrecipient or vendor, using criteria in Circular A-133.
24. Agency's estimated share and advance deposit.
A. Agency shall, prior to commencement of the preliminary engineering and/or right of way
acquisition phases, deposit with State its estimated share of each phase. Exception may
be made in the case of projects where Agency has written approval from State to use
in-kind contributions rather than cash to satisfy all or part of the matching funds
requirement.
B. Agency's construction phase deposit shall be 110 percent of Agency's share of the
engineer's estimate and shall be received prior to award of the construction contract.
Any additional balance of the deposit, based on the actual bid must be received within
forty-five (45) days of receipt of written notification by State of the final amount due,
unless the contract is canceled. Any unnecessary balance of a cash deposit, based on
the actual bid, will be refunded within forty-five (45) days of receipt by State of the
Project sponsor's written request.
C. Pursuant to ORS 366.425, the advance deposit may be in the form of 1) money
deposited in the State Treasury (an option where a deposit is made in the Local
Government Investment Pool, and an Irrevocable Limited Power of Attorney is sent to
the Highway Finance Office), or 2) an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a local bank
in the name of State, or 3) cash.
D. Agency may satisfy all or part of any matching funds requirements by use of in-kind
contributions rather than cash when prior written approval has been given by State.
25. If the estimated cost exceeds the total matched federal funds available, Agency shall
deposit its share of the required matching funds, plus 100 percent of all costs in excess of
the total matched federal funds. Agency shall also pay 100 percent of the cost of any item
in which FHWA will not participate. If Agency has not repaid any non-participating cost,
future allocations of federal funds, or allocations of State Highway Trust Funds, to that
Agency may be withheld to pay the non-participating costs. If State approves processes,
procedures, or contract administration outside the Local Agency Guidelines that result in
items being declared non-participating, those items will not result in the withholding of
Agency's future allocations of federal funds or the future allocations of State Highway Trust
Funds.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
13
'1 I
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA>>
26. Costs incurred by State and Agency for services performed in connection with any phase of
the Project shall be charged to the Project, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon.
27. If Agency makes a written request for the cancellation of a federal-aid project; Agency shall
bear 100 perc.ent of all costs as of the date of cancellation. If State was the sole cause of
the cancellation, State shall bear 100 percent of all costs incurred. If it is determined that
the cancellation was caused by third parties or circumstances beyond the control of State or
Agency, Agency shall bear all development costs, whether incurred by State or Agency,
either directly or through contract services, and State shall bear any State administrative
costs incurred. After settlement of payments, State shall deliver surveys, maps, field notes,
and all other data to Agency.
28. Agency shall follow requirements of the Single Audit Act. The requirements stated in the
Single Audit Act must be followed by those local governments and non-profit organizations
receiving $500,000 or more in federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984, PL 98-502 as
amended by PL 104-156, described in "OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-133", requires local
governments and non-profit organizations to obtain an audit that includes internal controls
and compliance with federal laws and regulations of all federally-funded programs in which
the local agency participates. The cost of this audit can be partially prorated to the federal
program.
29. Agency shall make additional deposits, as needed, upon request from State. Requests for
additional deposits shall be accompanied by an itemized statement of expenditures and an
estimated cost to complete the Project.
30. Agency shall present invoices for 100 percent of actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf
of the Project directly to State's Liaison Person for review and approval. Such invoices shall
identify the Project and Agreement number, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for
which reimbursement is claimed. Billings shall be presented for periods of not less than
one-month duration, based on actual expenses to date. All billings received from Agency
must be approved by State's Liaison Person prior to payment. Agency's actual costs
eligible for federal-aid or State participation shall be those allowable under the provisions of
Title 23 CFR Parts .11..1, 140 and 710, Final billings shall be submitted to State for
processing within three months from the end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award
date of a construction contract for preliminary engineering 2) last payment for right-of-way
acquisition and 3) third notification for construction. Partial billing (progress payment) shall
be submitted to State within three months from date that costs are incurred. Final billings
submitted after the three months shall not be eligible for reimbursement.
31. The cost records and accounts pertaining to work covered by this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of State and FHWA for a period of six (6) years
following the date of final voucher to FHWA. Copies of such records and accounts shall be
made available upon request. For real property and equipment, the retention period starts
from the date of disposition (Title 49 CFR 18.42).
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
14
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA))
32. State shall request reimbursement, and Agency agrees to reimburse State, for federal-aid
funds distributed to Agency if any of the following events occur:
a) Right of way acquisition or actual construction of the facility for which
preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were
authorized;
b) Right of way acquisition is undertaken utilizing federal-aid funds and actual
construction is not started by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following
the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized for right of way
acquisition.
c) Construction proceeds after the Project is determined to be ineligible for
federal-aid funding (e.g., no environmental approval, lacking permits, or other
reasons).
33. Agency shall maintain all Project documentation in keeping with State and FHWA standards
and specifications. This shall include, but is not limited to, daily work records, quantity
documentation, material invoices and quality documentation, certificates of origin, process
control records, test results, and inspection records to ensure that projects are completed in
conformance with approved plans and specifications.
RAILROADS
34. Agency shall follow State established policy and procedures when impacts occur on railroad
property. The policy and procedures are available through State's appropriate Region
contact or State's Railroad Liaison. Only those costs allowable under Title 23'Cf=R Part 646,
subpart B and Title 23 CFR Part 140, subpart I, shall be included in the total Project costs;
all other costs associated with raifroad work will be at the sole expense of Agency, or
others. Agency may request State, in writing, to provide railroad coordination and
negotiations. However, State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties.
UTILITIES
35. Agency shall cause to be relocated or reconstructed, aU privately or publicly-owned utility
conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind and nature
where such relocation or reconstruction is made necessary by the plans of the Project in
order to conform the utilities and other facilities with the plans and the ultimate requirements
of the Project. Only those utility relocations, which are eligible for federal-aid partiCipation
under, Title 23 CFR 645A. shall be included in the total Project costs; all other utility
relocations shalf be at the sole expense of Agency, or others. State win arrange for utility
relocations/adjustments in areas lying within jurisdiction of State, if State is performing the
preliminary engineering. Agency may request State in writing to arrange for utility
relocations/adjustments lying within Agency jurisdiction, acting on behalf of Agency. This
request must be submitted no later than twenty-one (21) weeks prior to bid let date.
However, State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
15
Agency/State
Agreement No. <( IGA>)
36. Agency shall follow established State utility relocation policy and procedures. The policy and
procedures are available through the appropriate State's Region Utility Specialist or State's
Right of Way Section Railroad Liaison, and Utility Engineer.
STANDARDS
37. Agency agrees that design standards for all projects on the National Highway System
(NHS) and the Oregon State Highway System shall be in compliance to standards specified
in the current "State Hiohwav Desion Manual" and related references. Construction plans
shall be in conformance with standard practices of State for plans prepared by its own staff.
All specifications for the Project shall be in substantial compliance with the most current
"Oreoon Standard Specifications for Hiohwav Construction".
38. Agency agrees that minimum design standards for non-NHS projects shall be
recommended AASHTO Standards and in accordance with the current "OreQon Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan", unless otherwise requested by Agency and approved by State.
39. Agency agrees and will verify that the installation of traffic control devices shall meet the
warrants prescribed in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Oregon
Supplements" .
40. All plans and specifications shall be developed in general conformance with the current
"Contract Plans Development Guide" and the current "Oreoon Standard Specifications for
Hiohwav Construction" and/or guidelines provided.
41. The standard unit of measurement for all aspects of the project shall be English Units. All
project documents and products shall be in English. This includes, but is not limited to, right
of way, environmental documents, plans and specifications, and utilities.
GRADE CHANGE LIABILITY
42. Agency, if a County, acknowledges the effect and scope of ORS 105.755 and agrees that all
acts necessary to complete construction of the Project which may alter or change the grade
of existing county roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the County.
43. Agency, if a City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from grade
changes. Approval of plans by State shall not subject State to liability under ORS 105.760
for change of grade.
44. Agency, if a City, by execution of Agreement, gives its consent as required by ORS
373.030(2) to any and all changes of grade within the City limits, and gives its consent as
required by ORS 373.050(1) to any and all closure of streets intersecting the highway, if any
there be in connection with or arising out of the project covered by the Agreement.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
16
Agency/State
Agreement No. <dGA))
CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
45. Agency shall, to the extent permitted by state law, indemnify, hold harmless and provide
legal defense for State against all claims brought by the contractor, or others resulting from
Agency's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
46. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under Paragraph 45, neither Agency nor
any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon
or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State
of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney
General. The State of Oregon may t at anytime at its election assume its own defense and
settlement in the event that it determines that Agency is prohibited from defending the State
of Oregon, or that Agency is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or
that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the
State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue any claims it
may have against Agency if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense.
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBiliTIES
47. Agency shall, upon completion of construction, thereafter maintain and operate the Project
at its own' cost and expense, and in a manner satisfactory to State and FHWA.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE
48. All employers, including Agency that employ subject workers who work under this
Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required
Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126.
Agency shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements.
lOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
49. Agency certifies by signing the Agreement that:
A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the
undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of
any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan,
the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of
a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL.
"Disclosure Form to Report LobbvinQ." in accordance with its instructions.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
17
Agency/State
Agreement No. <<IGA})
C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the
award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and
subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative agreements) which
exceed $100,000, and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
D. Thi's certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed
when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Title 31. USC Section
1352.
E. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of
not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Paragraphs 35, 36. and 47 are not applicable to any local agency on state highway projects.
STDPRO-2008.doc
Rev. 09-23-2008
18
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Application for Funding Under the
ARRA Safe Drinking Water Loan Funding Program
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412
Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Finance Secondary Contact: Mike Faught 552-2411
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept. :
Approval:
Question:
Will Council authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA /2009 Oregon Safe Drinking
Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, ""B" Street, and Terrace Street
water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA / 2009
Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, ""B" Street,
and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir
Improvement Proj ect?
Background:
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Oregon was allocated
$28,515,000 for distribution through the state's Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund
(SDWRLF) program. Under this program 500/0 of the ARRA funds will be awarded as grant or
principle forgiveness and 50% will be through zero interest loans.
Staff submitted five projects for a total cost of $8,250,000 of which $4,250,000 is SDC eligible. The
following chart outlines the potential application submittals within the $4 million grant criteria:
Option Project Description Estimate Cost Max Grant Amount Additional Funds
No. Required.
1 TAP Waterline $6,800,000 $4,000,000 $2,800,000
Granite Waterline
2 "B' St Waterline $1,450,000 $4,000,000 ($2,550,000)
Terrace St Waterline
Pump St & Reservoir
3 All Proj ects $8,250,000 $4,000,000 $4,250,000
Of the three options, staff is recommending an application for Option 2 as these projects would be
funded 1000/0 by the loan/grant. The grant application is due April 15, 2009; therefore staff needs
Council authorization at the April 7, 2009 Council meeting. Staff is not recommending the TAP
waterline project be considered for a loan/grant at this time as the project would not meet the project
readiness criteria.
Page 1 of 3
r~'
'1 r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Grant Application Requirements:
ARRA funds are awarded on a competitive process and all applications must meet the following
requirements and timetables:
1. The deadline for application for ARRA funding is April 15, 2009.
2. The application must include documentation that demonstrates that a public meeting has been
held to discuss the intent to apply for ARRA funds.
3. Agencies must have submitted a prior letter of interest to be eligible to apply.
4. Agencies must certify that their project will be under construction by February 16, 2010.
5. Agencies must certify that their construction project will be complete by February 16, 2011.
6. Awards will be announced on May 15, 2009.
7. The funding cap per project is $6 million.
8. Funding application must include an Asset Management Planning Activity.
9. Projects funded in whole or in part with ARRA funding requires compliance with Davis Bacon
Water Rates and BOLl Wage Rates.
10. Projects funded with ARRA funding require compliance with "Buy American" for iron, steel
and manufactured goods provisions.
11. ARRA funds can not be used to purchase property or easements.
Letter of Interest (LOn
In January 2009 staff submitted a Letter of Interest to the Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department (OECDD) requesting possible funding of several water distribution projects.
The funding package included $12,800,000 in water projects. The projects, taken from the approved
Capital Improvement Plan, included the following individual water projects:
1. Granite Street Waterline Replacement $300,000
2. 'B' Street Waterline Replacement $300,000
3. Terrace Street Waterline Replacement $350,000
4. Pump Station Improvements and Storage Reservoir $500,000
5. TAP Waterline Construction $6,800,000
6. Crowson II Reservoir (alternative) $4550.000
TOTAL $12,800,000
This LOI is a critical element of the process as it is used to create a ranked list of potential projects to
be funded. On March 9th the City received notice that the City was eligible to apply for funding for
upgrades to the water system in the amount of $4,000,000 (Application Number SD-09-66). The first
five of the previously listed projects would be eligible for funding under the program. Project No.6,
Crowson II reservoir, would be an alternate and could only be funded if additional federal funds were
available or if existing funds were under allocated.
Prol ect Readiness
Project readiness is a requirement for the ARRA distribution of funds in order to preserve and create
jobs and promote economic recovery as quickly as possible. The projects must be under construction
by February 16, 20 I O. The Granite Street and' B' Street waterline replacement projects are designed
and can be bid within a few months. The Terrace Street waterline and the pump station and reservoir
projects have preliminary designs, but would require development of final plans and specifications
which could also be accomplished within a few months.
Page 20f3
~~,
1 r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
The City, through its City Council is empowered to enter into agreements with other governmental
agencies regarding acceptance of federal funds, grants or other offers.
Council Options:
1. The Council could decide to approve staff s recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign an
application for an ARRA /2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to
reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop
Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project.
2. The Council may decide not to apply for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water
Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street
water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement
Project.
3. The Council may decide to modify (
) staff s recommendations
Potential Motions:
1. Moves to authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking
Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace
Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement
Proj ect.
2. Move to direct staff not to submit an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking
Water Revolving Loan application.
3. Move to modify (
) staff s recommendations.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter of Interest (LOI)
3. Application Form
Page 3 of 3
~~,
! r
Og;
~z:
o~~
>- ..J ~
t- ..,.. ~
-.- z
~
VV') ~
1.~
g~ t
;~ ~>
!il!
i . e~
~E~i
~~ni
1 W'H .
~~ij~
1'3 : .. i
::If"'B~
~lil1ii;
z~j~~
o
Appendix I
Letter of Interest and Instructions
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
Oregon Economic and Community Development
200 State Lands Building (503) 986-0123
775 Summer Street NE
Salem OR 97301-1210
Letter of Interest
Pre~iation b ti1her
SAFE DRINKING WATER REVOLVING LO,~N FUND
OR.
fax (503) 581-5115
DRINKING WATER PROTECTION LOAN FUND
Section I: Water System
Full Name: City of Ashland
Street Address: 20 E Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Mailing Address: same
Phone: (541) 488-5587
Fax: (541) 488--6006
E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Population:
A. Community Population:
B. Project Area Population:
21,600
21 ,600
(. if ditrermt)
Contact Person: Michael R, Faught
Street Address: .
Mailing Address: .
Phone: ·
Fax: ·
E-Mail: ·
Project Type:
D. Infrastructure Project (mark any/all as appropriate)-
o Planning. Preliminary Engineering
~ Final Design" Specifications
[8J Construction
E. Source Water Protection Project - 0
c. Number of equivalent
dwelling units (EDU): 9,935
Readiness to Proceed:
F. Is system presently able to prepare and submit final application for funding?
[8J Yes 0 No
G. Maximum time after funding approval before work commenced/costs iocWTed:
H. When is construction (if applicable) expected to begin:
Section 2: Project Title: Water Distribution System Improvement
90 Days
2009
Section 3: Brief Project Summary (Answer only in the space provided)
A.Describe Drinking Water Quality Problem: Ashland's primary source for potable waters is from live flows from the
Fast and West forks of Ashland Creek. During summer months water can be supplemented with irrigation water from
Talent Irrigation District and Bureau of Reclamation. All waters are processed through the water treatment plant
distribution system with 4 storage reset'Voirs, 4 pump stations and 1.5 miles of pipeline. With Ashland's single water
treatment source there are times when plant is omine and or over capacity. All these facilities have finite life cycles and
require continual replacements, upgrades and improvements for safe and economical functioning. In addition. Ashland's
Water System Master Plan identified four deficient areas that need correcting: leaking pipes. undersized and restrictive
pipes; water storage capacity; and replacing I continually running pump station to save energy and improve reliability.
a.Describe the Proposed Solution to the Problem: Three separate, but related projects are proposed to solve some of
Ashland's w~er quality problems. I. Replacing and upsize three major waterlines made of steel or cast iron (Cost
Sl,OSO,OOO). 2. Pump station replacement and installation of. 50,000 gallon water reservoir (Cost 5500.000). 3. Extend
the Talent, Ashland, Phoenix (TAP) pipeline from Talent to Ashland to provide additionaValtemative water to
supplement Ashland's water treatment plant during times of need. This proposed construction project consists of 4 miles
of 16" ductile iron pipe (Cost 6,800,000). Total of proposed projects is S8,250,OOO.
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEClUOO9\09-01 OEeD ltr of IntertsI wtr distr sys improve I '409,doc
'1 r
Section 4: Loan Repayment and Finances
A. Source(s) of Loan Repayment (check one or more as applicable):
~ Water user fees 0 Voter-approved General Obligation
o Reserves 0 Other:
B. Debt currently borne by the water system (as applicable):
I. T otaJ debt paid by water fees
2. T otaJ debt paid by property taxesl1evy
3. Average annual residential property taxes for debt
~ Connection Fees
$9,545,439
$7,713,509
$IOJ .52
c. Current average monthly (7,500 gallons) residential user
f~: $
Section S: Funds Requested and Project Costs
A. $ 4,000,000 Total Moneys Sought through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
B. $ Water System's Participation (retained earnings, reserves)
C. $ 4,250,000 Other funds - source: SOC
D. $ Other Funds - source:
E. S 8.250,000 Total Project Cost
Section 6: Miscellaneous
A. Are aJl water system connections metered? t8J Yes 0 No
I f no. what percentage is not metered? %
B. Does your project involve the merger of two or more water systems? 0 Yes cg] No
Section 7: Certification
I certify dla, to tile bat 01 my btDwletlge. .u I1tfDntUlthHI cOlf/llbred br tills Ldtn DII"ures/ Is 'I.I/t! ."d
tlCCIlNte.
Authorized _
Signature ~t" "- 0
kL
~
Title Public Works Director
Jurisdiction City of Ashland
Name Michael R. Faught
(TYPE OR PRINT)
Please Submit Ori2inal and Four (4) Copies
Date \J4)~'
Note: This ldter of Interest will be used to create a ranked list of potential projects to be funded by the
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and to qualify projects seeking assistance from the
Drinking Water Protection Loan Fund. Completion and submission of this form does IIt1t obligate
anyone to accept a loan or grant.
Also J<< tile DrlItj/", Wilier Progr.", web /HIre: htto://www.ohd.hr.state.or.usldwolabout.cfm
I For i"
u...~
o~ to "1W~i a Referred to CDBG 0 ~ .
G:\ptJb-wOO\cng\dep(-admin\ENGJNEER\PROJECI\2009\09~1 DECO Ltr of Intcrc::st wtr distt sys improve I 14 09. doc
r r
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund
American Recovery and Reinvestnlcnt Act of 2009
(Economic Stimulus)
General Application Form
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
775 Summer 51. NE, Suite 200
Salem, Oregon 97301-1280
Attn: Community Development Division/SDWRLF
Applications must be postmarked no
later than April 15, 2009. No
electronic filing of applications will be
accepted.
Applicant:
Project Name:
Applicant Information
Applicant's Organization Type:
o City
o County
o Special District, organized
under ORS
o Water Association, organized
under
ORS
o Tribe
D Other
organized under ORS
-
Contact Name: Phone:
------,------
Fax:
Title:
Email:
Street Address: Mailing Address:
Page 1 of5
'r r
Additional Project/Applicant location Data
Congressional District (of Project) #
State House District #
State Senate District #
State Senator Name !
State Representative Name
Applicant's Federal Tax 10 No:
Applicant's DUNS Number:
A vailable at:
http://fedgov.dnb.com/webfonn/
Budget Une Item SDWRLF Other Non~Department
(ARRA) Department Total
Funds Funds
Totals
Status
Source of Non.Oepartment Funds Amount Committed, Application Submitted,
Application Invited, or Potential Source
- ... ...- ~ . -- --- .- ----_...-..
Total
Problem! Opportunity
Response to Probleml Opportunity
Page 2 of5
'I r
Oetailed project description
If interim financing is needed - indicate the source(s)
Project Work Plan
Activity Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date
Estimated First Draw Date (dd/mm/yy):
General Certification:
I certify that this project meets the following "Ready to Proceed" Criteria (Indicate "YES" in all that apply. If
"NO" please indicate percent completed):
Compliance Indicate 0.10 Mandatory
Ready to Proceed Criteria with Criteria - Complete at Deadline for
YES or NO Time of Completion
Application of Activity
Engineering/De~!9.!1 is 1000/0 Complete. 1213112009
All Required Permits and/or Water Rights have 11/30/2009
been Obtained.
Environmental Review is Complete. 11/30/2009
Bid Documents and Specifications are Compl~t~. 12/31/2009
All Necessary Easements and lor Property are 09/30/2009
ACQuired. ..-
All Funding Necessary to Complete Project is 12/31/2009
Secured.
Board or Council Approval to Execute GranULoan -----._----. --
07/20/09
Agreement
User Rates are Sufficient to Support Additional 04/15/2009
Page 3 of 5
1 r
Debt or Are Phased to Support Additional Debt by
End of Project. ~.-----"-
Project is Consistent with Comprehensive Land 04/15/2009
Use Plans.
I Comment s Related to Item(s) Above:
I further certify that to the best of my knowledge all information contained in this document and any attached
supplements, is valid and accurate. I further certify that, to the best of my knowledge:
1) The application has been approved by the governing body or is otherwise being submitted using the
governing body's lawful process, and
2) If signed by an official, other than the highest elected official, documentation is attached that verifies the
official's authority to sign on behalf of the applicant. Such documentation can include a resolution,
ordinance, order, governing body meeting minutes, or charter.
Signature
(must be highest elected or authorized official)
Printed Name & Title
Date
Page 4 of5
'1 r
Instructions for Application Form:
o Applicant: Entity that will be the applicant for Department assistance and will manage the project.
o Project Name: Name of the applicant and project (e.g., Stayton Water System Improvements).
o Applicant's Organization Type: Check the applicable applicant organizational type, and if a
special district or port, identify the applicable ORS organizing authority, or identify other type.
o Information for Contact Person: Information for the person we should contact if we have
questions about the project.
o Detailed Project Budget: List individual project budget line items with requested budgeted
amounts by OECDD funding sources and non-department sources. Change the respective
budget column labels to identify the specific requested OECDD funding sources.
o Source of Non-Oepartment Funds: List all sources, amounts and status of funds other than
those requested from OECOD.
o Problem/Opportunity: Briefly describe the problem or opportunity facing the applicant.
o Response to Problem/Opportunity: Briefly describe the major alternatives considered by the
applicant to address the problem or opportunity facing the applicant.
o Detailed Project Oescription: Clearly describe the proposed project work to be accomplished.
o Interim Financing (if any): Identify any interim financing needed by the applicant and list any
committed or potential sources of interim financing.
o Project Work Plan: List project activity milestones with estimated start and completion dates.
Identify estimated date of first cash draw.
o Signature: Must be highest elected official or authorized official. (Such documentation may
include a resolution, ordinance, order, governing body meeting minutes, or charter).
Page 5 of5
'1 r
Application Supplement for
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Economic Stimulus)
EO: For General Program assistance with completing this Application Supplement please refer to
the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund's Program Guidelines & Applicant's Handbook
(September 2008). This document is available by contacting your Regional Coordinator or
on line at http://WVJW.oreQon.gov/ECDD/CD/08SDW TOC.shtm!.
Project Assistance definitions:
Asset Management Activities- Includes required Asset Management Activities such as
inventorying the water system physical assets, GIS mapping of system assets, integrating
existing asset inventory data into financial accounting and budget planning, performing failure
risk analysis exercises, consolidating various capital improvement and related documents into
an integrated asset management plan, or other activities that implement asset management
principles.
Engineering / Leaal- Includes any final design and construction engineering, legal, and related
costs associated with the construction activities to be financed as part of the project.
Construction - One or more of the following:
Treatment - includes disinfection, filtration, waste handling and treatment, aeration,
iron/manganese removal and chemical storage tanks.
Transmission & Distribution - includes raw and finish water transmission, service lines,
valves, backflow prevention, water meters and pumping stations.
Source - wells, wellhead pumps and surface water intakes.
Storaae - elevated and ground level storage for finished/treated water and covers for
existing storage.
Purchase of Svstems - all of the eligible costs funded by the loan fund to purchase a system as
part of a consolidation or regionalization effort.
Restructurino - costs associated with changes in organizational structure, management,
accounting, rates, or other procedures conducted to meet the technical, financial. and
managerial requirements.
Other - any other assistance costs that cannot be classified into the categories above - please
specify and describe the cost.
N
SDWRLF
Other Funds
Total
Treatment
Transmission & Distribution
Source
Stora e
stems
Page 1 of9
Total
Green Infrastructure - Up to 200/0 of ARRA funding may be used to assist applicants with costs
associated with addressing green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or
other environmentally innovative activities. If the project includes green infrastructure please
complete the following table providing the estimated amount of green infrastructure cost
associated with the project's project type categories.
Construction SOWRLF Other Funds Total
Treatment
Transmission & Distribution
Source
Storage
Total
Green Infrastructure Costs
Additional Project Information
Yes No
Is project for construction of a new system?
Is project for consolidation of existing systems? If Y, # eliminated_
Indicate which one of the fol/owing applies for this project:
Project is to maintain compliance with existinQ regulation(s)
Project is to achieve compliance with existina regulation(s)
Project is to achieve compliance with future regulation(s)
Project is not compliance related
WhoownSlheSYSlem? ... · ..___
Has a project site been selected or will easements/rights-of-way need to be obtained for the project? If
acquisition of property and/or easements is still necessary, will acquisition be complete no later than
September 30, 20091 (Please note: no ARRA funds may be used for acquisition of property or
easements.)
Page 2 of9
Does the system have a meter(s) at the water supply source(s)? If no, explain whether the required
meter(s) will be provided as part of the project.
Are meters installed on all service connections throughout the drinking water system? If no, explain
whether the required meters will be provided as part of the project.
Does the system have an operations program to read and maintain the required source meter(s) and
service connection meters?
Does the system have the resources to read and maintain the required source meter(s) and service
connection meters?
Does the System currently utilize asset management tools as part of its operations, management and
replacement planning? If yes, what types of tools?
Is the engineer selected for the project a professional engineer registered in Oregon?
What is the estimated useful life of the improvements included in the project?
What sources of revenue are being pledged to repay a loan?
Is other debt serviced or secured by those revenues? If yes, is it described in the applicant's audit
reports? If no, please describe:
Has the applicant ever defaulted on a debt? If yes, provide a complete summary of the circumstances
related to the default.
Is there pending litigation that could impair the applicant's ability to repay debt?
Describe any anticipated changes in the rates in the next five years.
-.-------
- ---
I How will owners of property which specifically_benefit from the project pay for the cost of the project?
Page 3 of9
'r r
Who prepared the cost estimates for the project? Name, title, company, phone, and date.
Project Administration
Describe the anticipated project administrator's experience in undertaking projects and ensuring their
completion within defined timeframes.
Indicate the level of regulation by the Public Utility Commission: Service or Service & Rate Regulated
I Date the business filed or fonned _
I Date present operation commenced
If you are purchasing the property, are there any mortgages or liens on the property which will not be
paid off before this loan closes? If yes, please list the following for each mortgage or lien on the
property: 1) lender's name and address 2) Original loan amount 3) Interest rate 4) Payment amount 5)
Current balance 6) Account number
If you are leasing the property, provide the following: 1) Landowner name and address 2) Term remaining
on the lease 3) Payment amount 4) How often the payment is due
List any pages and/or attachments in this application which the applicant requests be considered
exempt from public disclosure under ORS 192.502(15).
Provide the following for the principals In the business. Note: Principals of closely held or under-
capitalized businesses are expected to personally guarantee loans. 1) Name 2) Title 3) Address 4)
Percent owned 5) Social Security #
Are any legal actions pending against the applicant or principals?
Has the applicant or any principals formed a business which ceased to exist in less than two years, filed
bankruptcy, or experienced foreclosure, repossession, debt judgment, or criminal penalty within the last
seven years?
Page 4 of9
r r
List of collatera~~eal property and its value that is available to secure repayment of the loan.
Provide the following for buildings currently on the real property that is available to secure repayment of
the loan: 1) name or other description of building 2) size 3) use
Attachmonts
x X
Attached? APP~C~ble?
Attachment
Label
(please do
not change)
A
B
C
o
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
o
P
a
R
Description of Attachment
Documentation from the appropriate entity (city or county) which
indicates that the project has received land use approval. (In some
cases, this may also involve documentation of land use approval
from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development
De artment.
Letter(s) of financial commitment regarding any other funds
needed to undertake and com lete the ro. ect.
If applicant is a city, county, or special district, attach list of the ten
largest property tax payers in the applicant's jurisdiction, their type
of business, total taxes, and current assessed value.
If applicable, attach a copy of the Notice of Non-Compliance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act issued by the Division of Health
Services Drinkin Water Pro ram.
If the project overlaps municipal boundaries, attach an executed
copy of an intergovernmental cooperation agreement which sets
out the duties and obli ations of each enti .
Copy of current rate schedule, including rates for System
Development Charges (SDCs).
If the system is a public system, attach a copy of the most recent
resolution or ordinance which ado ts the current rate schedule.
Information on the system's ten largest customers (see form
below .
Summary of Users, Consumption, and Rates (see form below)
Map(s) showing the location of the project, including tax
lots/ ,areels and road widths, etc.
Map showing the boundaries of the system.
A Schedule of Pro Forma Revenues and Expenditures for each of
the next five years and any underlying assumptions used (see
form below .
Applicant's adopted budget.
The applicant's last three audit reports or if audit reports are not
available, the a licant's last three tax returns.
If available, plans & specifications for the project.
If available, Water System Master Plan.
Copies of any ordinances which establish debt that is supported
b the source of re a ment for this loan.
The study conducted to determine the feasibility of the
facility/improvements or any preliminary
architectural/engineering/planning work that has been completed.
The documents must be stamped and signed by a professional
architect/en ineer re istered or licensed in Ore on.
Page 5 of9
1 r
Attachments
X
Attached?
X
APJi'~?
Attachment
Label
(please do
not change)
s
T
Description of Attachment
If applicant is a Homeownerst association or a for.profit
co ration, articles of inco oration are attached.
If the public water system is owned by a non.prorrt organization
tax-exem t documentation is attached.
Page 6 of9
1 r
ATTACHMENT H
System's Ten Largest Customers
Customer Name Annual % of total Annual % of total
Consumption consumption revenue annual
(in gallons or for system received by revenue
cubic feet) the system received by
the system
I Source and date of the above data.
Page 70f9
f-
Z
W
~
:J:
o
<
t:
<
tn
S
C'G
0::
"'0
t:
C'G
t:
o
..
Co
E
:s
en
t:
o
o
f
CD
en
:J
....
o
~
ftS
E
E
~
en
~
:11)
>-
~
en =~
c >-
.2
'ii ~
C) :M
e.. >-
c ..
0 :N
~
Co >-
E
::J
In ~
C cv
0 4)-
U >-
...
c
Q)
~
..
::J
U
<<
<< <<
<< <<
<< Q)
~ ..
::J
COG ...
a:: ::J
.. LL.
Cb
tn
::J
>-
:c -
... c
c 4)
..
0 ..
:E :s
U
C) cCI>
~ ..
::J
-
'i ::J
~: LL.
....!!
C'-
CI> c
'ii::J ...
~ C
::J Q)
cr ..
..
W :s
U
..
4)
..
:s
(I) ...
C ::J
0 LL.
;
U
Cb
C
C ...
0 c
0 0
..
..
::J
U
tn ns ~
tn ; U nI
.!! c ..
4) "t:
U CD E ... .!!
:'E In ..
~ E ::J 4) nI
CI> (I) "tJ J::. -
tn 4) 0 ... 0
::> a:: () .E 0 t-
-._.
...
.c
Cb
'0
'C
C
l'G
..;-
.c
CD
'C
....
o
'i:
C.
..;-
c
CD
E
CI>
U
l'G
Q.
4)
..
E
o
...
(I)
>-
tn
E
..
CD
...
I
OJ
c
.2
0)
.. u
Q) C
~ l'G
::s c
.. _ Cb
Cl>COG-
(I)~.E
::s c: tIS
'ii~E
;; -; c
;f.2
::EtlS1V
: 0 t
~ _ Co
tIS .c 0
oc~
_o:s
.cEc:;
ct.E
oE Co 0
c'"
G;.2~
c.Q.Q)
C E Cb
o C
.- ::s Cb
"5.Cf)_
E g E
::J U Cb
In-.c
COt-
o en
U c '
_OC
0- 0
ctI'i~
C en..!
00 c.
=oE
CO II) 0
CD...: (,)
o"'c
~.Eo
"':0;
... U
II ns 2
......
::>nscnt)
CCbCCI>
WcnO-
T'" ::s (,) e
w";1V c.
J!EECI>.!!
=.!.!1V~
ucn(l)~.c
Cb >->-Q)~
o.,en(l)~
Q.CbCi;::J'C
...1Gn;f.!
:~~.a~
>,.....::Ju
ooou..o
Nu..u.... ~
.. .. .. VI
.. .. .. .. co
0\
4-<
o
QO
It)
00
l:l:$
0...
E
Q)
...
(I)
>-
(I)
CD
s::.
... .
E >- fI)
Ci).c~
-"tJC
(I) CI> 0
~~E
o 4) )(
.c f)-
"'SCl)
~ c;
" Cbs::.
CD!:!'"
~ ctI Cb
L. Q) ....
Cb ... 0
(l)1:E
.!JCb'"
c c c
Cb ftS CO
"ECb
c;;..E
CD CI> -
.. Q,...
__c
o 0 CI>
~...c
Ci) Q) CO
.c.cE
E E ~
::J ::J CI>
zz~
r r
ATTACHMENT L
Schedule of Pro Forma Revenues and Expenditures
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Rate per EDU
Connections
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)
Total Revenue
Operating Revenue*
Operating Expenses" ..'-
Net Operating Revenue
Existing Debt Service (identify
source )***
E:xisting Debt Service (identify
Isource)".
!Total Existing Debt Service
.do not Include Interest, system development charges, etc.
-do not Include capital outlay, transfers, debt service, etc.
.uadd additional rows as needed
ures.
Page 9 of9
r r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Public Hearing on the 2009 Community Development Block Grant Award and
CDBG Action Plan Development
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
Planning E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Linda Reid
reidl@ashland.or.us
Bill Molnar
30 Minutes
Question:
Should the City Council award up to $165,367 in Community Development Block Grant funds to one
or more of the respondents to the Request for Proposals in compliance with eligibility criteria of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development?
Recommendations:
Staff recommends that The Housing Authority of Jackson County's (HAJC) proposal be funded in the
amount of$165,367. Staff is supportive of funding HAJC with either the full grant amount of
$165,367 or $135,367 should Pathway Enterprise, Inc. receive a public service award in the amount of
$30,000. If awarded the full amount, staff would also recommend that HAJC provide full street
improvements rather than half street improvements on the interior (south side) street.
The City of Ashland Housing Commission reviewed the grant requests at a public hearing held on
March 26th, 2009. The Housing Commission made a motion to forward a recommendation to fund the
Housing Authority of Jackson County $165,367 for public facilities improvements, Public right of way
improvements on Clay streets and on interior streets.
Background:
The City of Ashland provides Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to eligible affordable
housing providers and non-profit organizations for capital improvement and public service projects
within the City of Ashland. Awarded projects must address the CDBG national objectives, and be
consistent with the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan for Use of CDBG Funds. The City
Council is to evaluate three proposals received for use of $165,367 in available CDBG funds. Upon
review of the proposals, and after taking any public testimony at a public hearing, the Council shall
make an award to the selected applicant(s).
The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2009 program year is expected to be
$204,818. The funds that have been offered competitively are estimated from the previous year's
allocation and have had the administrative portion of 200/0 removed ($40,963 for administration of the
CDBG program). Of the available 2009 funds a maximum of 15%, approximately $30,000, is
available for Public Service projects. An unallocated balance of $1 ,512 in carryover funds is also
available to be added to the Capital Improvement project funds. In total there is $165,367 currently
available for award.
The City of Ashland has received three applications for the 2009 Community Development Block
Grant funds that are competitively available including the following:
Page 1 of 3
~~,
r r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Housing Authority of Jackson County - $164,000 for public facility improvements
. Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley - $164,000 for land acquisition
. Pathway Enterprises Inc. - $30,000 to hire 3 Community Living Specialists to assist 5 Special
needs clients with independent living skills.
The attached Staff Evaluation, dated March 26, 2009, contains a complete background of funding
availability, the award process, Staff s assessment of each proposal, and the relevant CDBG program
criteria relating to the award of CDBG funds and each of the applications received.
Presentations by applicants during the March 26th public hearing before the Housing Commission
brought forward new information which was pertinent to the Housing Commission's award
recommendation. Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley Stated that the period of affordability for their
project could be increased to 60 years, which would raise that project's priority needs assessment
rating from a B to an A.
. Support acquisition and development of affordable ownership housing units through a
sustainable program which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a land trust. (A)
Pathways Enterprise, Inc. stated that they have identified 4 out of the 5 residents wishing to move out
of a group home setting and into a supported independent living environment who currently work,
recreate, and reside in the Ashland area and have expressed an interest in continuing to reside within
the City of Ashland. Though PEl could not guarantee that these individuals will ultimately continue to
reside within the city, they feel very confident that they will be able to meet the 51 % city service
clause of the CDBG Public Service program (which requires programs that receive City of Ashland
CDBG Public Service funds to primarily serve and benefit Ashland residents) and could foresee no
problems with returning the grant funds if they could not.
During the Housing Commission's discussions of the proposals the Commission expressed a strong
desire to support the Housing Authority's project, though considerable credit was given to the proposal
brought forth by Habitat for Humanity, and an interest in supporting that organization in the future
should they come forward with a different project. Further the Housing Commission expressed great
interest in and support for the Pathways Enterprise, Inc. proposal but felt that the Housing Authority of
Jackson County showed compelling need for further funding on the Clay street project's public
facilities improvements. The Commission did not feel that the Housing Authority should complete full
street improvements on the South Side interior street to serve a future housing project as staffhas
recommended in their evaluation.
Related City Policies:
2005-2009 Consolidated Plan: Community Development Block Grants are federal funds awarded
through the City of Ashland to eligible projects that benefit low-moderate income households.
Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan for use ofCDBG funds establishes which of the nationally
recognized eligible uses are prioritized locally. Staff evaluations are based on meeting the national
objectives for the CDBG program, the basic federal requirements for eligibility, locally recognized
priorities as established in the Consolidated Plan, and include evaluation criteria that was noted in the
Request for Proposals to provide applicants with the selection criteria used in assessing the proposals
strengths and weaknesses.
Page 2 of3
~~,
'r r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Annual CDBG Action Plan: The City Council shall accept both general and specific public testimony
regarding the development of the 2009 CDBG Action Plan at this public hearing. Upon completion of
award selections by the City Council, an Annual CDBG Action Plan will be drafted to outline the
proposed uses(s) of the 2009 CDBG funds. A public hearing for review and approval of this 2009
Annual CDBG Action Plan will be held before the Housing Commission on April 23rd, 2009, to insure
consistency with the awards designated by the City Council.
Comprehensive Plan: Policy 6.1.1.4(b) of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, to cooperate with
the Housing Authority of Jackson County to provide affordable housing within the City.
Council Options:
Upon review of the proposals received, and after hearing and public comments, the Council shall
determine whether the projects effectively address the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan (see
goals under assessment criteria in the attached staff evaluation) and which of the projects is the most
appropriate use of the limited CDBG funding available.
The Council can select to award funds as requested or modify the award amounts. However, the
application of CDBG funds to Public Service projects applications is strictly limited to no more than
$30,000 (15% of the City's 2009 annual allocation).
The Council can award funds to one or more applicants, and direct Staff to develop an Annual CDBG
Action Plan amendment according to that selection.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve the award of$165,367 to the Housing Authority of Jackson County for public
facilities improvements to Clay street and interior streets.
Attachments:
Staff Evaluation dated March 26, 2009
CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria
CDBG Applications Received
. Housing Authority of Jackson County
. Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley
. Pathway Enterprises Inc.
Draft Housing Commission Meeting Minutes from March 26th 2009
Page 3 of3
r.,
'1 r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staff Evaluation
TO:
Title:
Date:
Submitted By:
Ashland Housing Commission and City Council
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2009 RFP
March 26, 2009
Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
The City of Ashland has received three applications for 2009 Community Development Block Grant
funds that are competitively available. The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2009
program year is expected to be $204,818. The funds that have been offered competitively are estimated
from the previous year's allocation and have had the administrative portion of 200/0 removed (or $40,963
for administration of the CDBG program). Of the available 2009 funds a set aside of 150/0 or
approximately $30,000 is available for Public Service projects. An unallocated balance of $1 ,512 in
carryover funds may be added to the Capital Improvement project funds. In total there is $165,367
available for award.
The City of Ashland Housing Commission is to hold a public hearing and review the grant requests on
March 26, 2009. The Housing Commission shall make a recommendation on a grant award to the City
Council. Subsequently, the City Council will hold a public hearing on April ih, 2009 to make a final
decision on the grant award.
Staffs recommendation regarding the allocation of the 2009 CDBG funds is provided on the following
pages.
Proposals Received
Organization Proposed Project CDBG Goal Consolidated
Funds Plan Goal #
Requested and Rank*
Habitat For Acquisition of .39 Acre site $164,000 Provide 6 Goal 2.1
Humanity/Rogue to build 6 homeownership homeownership Need Rank B
Valley units for low income units for low-
homeowners Income
homeowners
Housing Authority Infrastructure to Benefit a 60 $164,000 Support the Goal 1.2
of Jackson County unit low income development of 60 Need Rank A
development affordable rental
uni ts
Pathway Hire 3 new staff members to $30,000 Provide supportive Goal 6.2
Enterprises support independent living living services to 5 Need Rank B
for developmentally disabled special needs
population adults
~~,
1 r
Fundine: ReQuested/Available
A total of $165,367 in CDBG funds is expected to be available to distribute to eligible recipients for
projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2005-
2009 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public services is
limited to approximately $30,000.
These funds will be available upon approval of the 2009 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any
regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance.
Upon completion of the Action Plan amendment a public hearing for review and approval will be held
before the Housing Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council.
The US department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan
submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with
the local Consolidated Plan.
Assessment Criterion
Staff has assessed all proposals to determine whether they meet the Federal CDBG regulations and the
proposals address the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations.
. Projects must meet the National Objective of the Community Development Block Grant
Program.
. All CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" uses under the Community Development Block
Grant Program.
. If a project meets all federal requirements and is selected for award, then federal regulations
must be met throughout the course of the project.
Some examples of federal regulations which pertain to Community Development Block Grant funded
projects are; All projects funded in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental
review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). Construction projects must
use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates. Housing involving structures built prior to 1978 must be tested for
the presence of Lead Based Paint and if found steps to mitigate Lead Based Paint must be taken. Any
project involving the displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the federally funded project
are entitled to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. Most importantly the beneficiaries from the
application of CDBG funds must qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements. Areas
of concern are described for each proposal received. The Housing Commission, and the City Council
can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and meets an objective as
outlined in the City's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Priorities within the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan are given a priority ranking by
letter. The rankings of A, Band C are intended to assist in directing CDBG funds to the greatest needs.
In cases where there are competing projects for limited funds, the projects( s) that are ranked the highest
will be funded.
~.l'
1 r
A- The City of Ashland plans to use the CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs.
B- The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
c- The City of Ashland does not plan to use CDBG funds for projects meeting these needs but will
consider certifications of consistency for other entities which are applying for federal assistance to meet
these needs. Additionally such needs may also be addressed by the City through the allocation of
Economic Development and or Social Service Grants from the City General Fund.
Proposal Evaluations
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfHRV)
Staffhas reviewed the Habitat for Humanity proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG
regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009
Consolidated plan. HfHR V has requested $164,000 to acquire property for the development of 6
affordable homeownership units.
. This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national
objective.
. Acquisition of Land to benefit low-income populations is an eligible use of CDBG funds
. Staff finds that the Habitat for Humanity's proposal is consistent with goal number 2.1 of the
City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Goal 2: To increase the homeownership opportunities for extremely low-, low- and
moderate-income households. Where possible, give funding priority to those
projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes. 2.1:
Encourage the acquisition and construction of affordable housing by private
developers (B)
In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of "B" as a priority indicates that though
this is not the highest priority use for the CDBG funds it is an activity which could be funded provided
that there are not other projects which meet a higher priority need competing for the funds available.
B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
Staff sees that Habitat for Humanity's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent
with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity supports
the acquisition and development of affordable housing for low income households earning between 300/0
and 60% of Area Median Income. Further this project meets and exceeds the 100/0 leverage requirement
of the City of Ashland's CDBG program offering a 5 to 1 match ($829,000/164,000, CDBG funds will
contribute just fewer than 20010 of the proposed project's funds) which will serve to promote economic
development within the City of Ashland. This project as proposed will serve to meet the requirements
of an annexation completed in 2004. This property know as Old Bud's dairy received planning approval
for annexation and a density bonus conditioned upon providing 6 units affordable housing. The
annexation ordinance specified that a portion of the development (15%) be affordable and available to
qualifying buyers or renters making at or below 800/0 of AMI for a period of 20 years. This project will
offer a period of affordability of 30 years which is 10 years longer than the annexation ordinance
required for the original affordable housing development at that time. The current annexation ordinance
which was revised in 2007 requires a 60 year period of affordability. Though the initial homeowner will
rA'
1 r
be qualified at 300/0-600/0 AMI, which is a lower income than was required under the original Planning
approval, subsequently the property can be resold at any time during that 30 year period to a qualified
low to moderate income household (800/0 or below) which still meets the requirements imposed by the
original approval but does not offer added benefit to the city beyond that of the original approval with
regard to level of affordability.
Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC)
Staff has reviewed the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal to determine whether it meets
the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland
2005-2009 Consolidated plan. HAJC has requested $164,000 for public facilities improvements (roads)
to benefit a 60 unit low income housing development.
. This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national
objective.
. Public Facilities Improvement and Infrastructure are an eligible use of CDBG funds.
. Staff finds that the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal is consistent with goal
number 1.2 of the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Goall: To increase the supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low-, low
and moderate income families. Where possible, give funding priority to those
projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes. 1.2 to
support the acquisition and construction of affordable rental housing units through
a sustainable program, which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a
land trust (A).
In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of "A" as a priority indicates that this is the
highest priority use for the CDBG funds.
A- The City of Ashland plans to use CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs.
Staff sees that the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds
and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This
activity supports the acquisition and development of affordable rental housing for low income
households earning between 300/0 and 60% of Area Median Income. This project was awarded $345,000
in CDBG funds in the 2008 program year, and at that time notified the City of Ashland that the
applicants intended to apply for the 2009 CDBG funds as well. This project leverages a substantial
amount of federal, state and Housing Authority funds ($11,314,000/$509,000 which is a 22 to 1 match)
as match which also serves to promote economic development within the City of Ashland. Similarly the
Housing Authority offers programs to promote the self-sufficiency of residents, examples of services
that may be provided are computer classes, budgeting classes, and second language classes, due to this
development's proximity to the Ashland Family YMCA the project will offer memberships to the
children living in the project and discounted memberships to adults. Staff feels that these types of
support services serve to benefit the residents both socially and economically while also promoting long
term self-sufficiency and goal attainment. The applicant also ascertains that the project will "meet or
exceed" earth advantage standards, this will be the first multi-family rental project built in the City of
Ashland to receive an Earth Advantage rating. This project also allows the City of Ashland to meet
Policy 6.1.1.4(b) of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, to cooperate with the Housing Authority
of Jackson County to provide affordable housing within the City.
~.l'
'1 r
Pathway Enterprise, Inc. (PEl)
Staff has reviewed Pathway Enterprise, Inc's proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG
regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009
Consolidated plan. PEl has requested $30,000 for social service activities
. This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national
objective.
. Public Service positions that provide direct services to special populations to promote self-
sufficiency are eligible use of CDBG funds.
. Staff finds that Pathway Enterprise, Inc's proposal is consistent with goal number 6.2 of the City
of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Goal 6: To support housing and supportive services for people with special needs.
People with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly, persons with
developmental disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe
mental illness, persons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with
HIV / AIDS or related illnesses. 6.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations
that provide support services for extremely low and low income special needs
populations (B).
In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of "B" as a priority indicates that though
this is not the highest priority use for the CDBG funds it is an activity which is could be funded provided
that there are not other projects which meet a higher priority need competing for the funds available.
B- The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
Staff sees that the Pathway Enterprise, Inc's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is
consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity
provides supportive living skills and promotes the self-sufficiency of special populations. PEl has
experience administering funds from the Ashland CDBG program. In 2002 PEl was awarded $7,605 in
CDBG funds to re-roof one of their group homes located at 655 Normal Ave. The proposed service
exceeds the 100/0 match requirement, leveraging $108,327/30,000 or $3.61 in Jackson County DD54
funds and PEl organizational funds for every dollar of CDBG funds the city provides. One question that
staff feels should be addressed before a recommendation of award for this project be made, is the
question of service within the City of Ashland. Program funds must primarily serve clients who reside
within the City of Ashland. Thought PEl cannot guarantee that 3 out of the 5 clients identified who are
wanting to transition from a group home to independent living will choose to live in Ashland, program
funds would have to taken back and reprogrammed if 51 % (at least 3 of the 5) of those clients served did
not reside in Ashland.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to a limited amount ofCDBG funds staff recommends that The Housing Authority of Jackson
County's proposal be funded. Staffs recommendation would be to fund the HAJC proposal since it
meets the highest priority need ranking as outlined in the Five year Consolidated plan and ranks highest
under the CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria (attached). Staff is supportive of funding HAJC with
either the full grant amount of$165,367 or $135,367 should PEl receive a public service award. Staff
would also recommend that HAJC provide full street improvements rather than half street improvements
on the interior (south side) street to improve the safety of its residents and to facilitate pedestrian traffic.
Staff recognizes that full street improvements to this section of the interior streets is not provided for in
r~'
r r
Housing Authority's project budget, however, given the cumulative CDBG contributions requested staff
believes a greater measure of public improvements may be warranted.
Staff sees the value that Habitat for Humanity's project would provide to the community. Although
low-income homeownership is a priority as outlined in the Five year Consolidated plan, this application
does not differ substantially from the approval requirements currently in place for this property.
Habitat's project ranked lower than the Housing Authority's project on the CDBG Project Proposal
Rating Criteria. Staff also sees that the period of affordability of 30 years is not in keeping with the long
term affordability goal stated in the Five year Consolidated plan and reflected in the current Annexation
Ordinance, which would have given the project a higher ranking under the CDBG project proposal
rating criteria. If Habitat did provide a term of affordability that was aligned with the current annexation
ordinance (60 years) their application would have received a higher ranking and may have been more
competitive.
The proposed PEl project to provide life skills training and support for clients with developmental
disabilities would be eligible under the current City of Ashland Social Service Grant program and
therefore could be awarded up to $30,000 pending a guarantee of 51 % client benefit in the Ashland area,
thereby reducing the Capital Improvement award amount accordingly. Staff is supportive of the project
although has concerns regarding the area residency requirement as stated previously. Provided PEl can
guarantee 3 of the 5 beneficiaries are ultimately Ashland Residents staff would be supportive of an
award of $30,000 to PEL
Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson
County $164,000 to fund Public Facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay
streets and on interior streets. Public facilities including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer
line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements.
Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson
County $ 134,000 to fund Public Facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay
streets and on interior streets. Public facilities including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer
line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements. And to also recommend funding
Pathway Enterprises, Inc $30,000 in public service funds to provide life skills training and support for
clients with developmental disabilities.
r&,
1 r
CDBG Proiect Proposal Ratio!! Criteria
The final step in the process of evaluating the proposals typically is for the Housing Commission to
apply the following compliance criteria to determine which project(s) best meet the City's spending
priorities. Projects are given a rating of High, Medium, or Low on each of the criteria listed below. The
categories proposed provide a valuable way for individual Commissioners to gauge the effectiveness of
the proposal in meeting City objectives.
A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of
Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan
B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living
conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients
from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. "Safety net"
services or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients
receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency.
Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs.
C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem.
D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer
the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given
E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at
least 51 % of the jobs shall be held by low and moderate income people. The longer period of time
the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be
given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the
ranking the project shall be given.
F. The project maximizes partnerships in the community
G. The project has at least 100/0 of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of
matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given
H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall
not duplicate service provided by another organization
1. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project
J. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic
K. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project
L. The project is ready for implementation within a year of a CDBG award notification
M. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed
activity .
Letter HfHRV HAJC PEl
A. High High High
B. Medium High High
C. Medium Medium High
D. Low High Low
E. Low Low Low
F. Medium Medium Medium
G. Medium High Medium
H. Medium Medium Medium
1. High High High
J. High High High
K. High High Medium
L. High High High
~.l'
r r
M.
Potential questions: Staffs evaluation of the proposals is primarily based on the information provided in
the applications. In drafting this evaluation, staff thought of a number of questions which might provide
clarity in addressing some of the proposal rating criteria points, or which may serve to cast the
application in a more favorable light.
PEl:
How would you guarantee that the majority of the clients that will be served with the grant funds will
reside in Ashland?
Habitat:
Could you offer a longer period of affordability?
How does this project help clients move toward and eventually obtain self-sufficiency?
Will your project be incorporating any "green" building practices, such as Earth Advantage, could you
describe some, if any environmentally friendly components of the proposed development?
Housing Authority:
Could you complete full street improvements on the south side interior street?
All Applicants:
Could you describe how your project maximizes partnerships in the community?
Could you expound upon how your project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative
ways, and describe how the service that you offer is unique to this area?
~.l'
'1' r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 26, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Smith called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Alexandra Amarotico,
absent
Richard Billin
Regina Ayars Council Liaison: Carol Voisin
Steve Hauck
Bill Smith Staff Present:
Aaron Benjamin Linda Reid, Housing Specialist
Alice Hardesty Carolvn Schwendener, Account Clerk
Graham Lewis arrived at 4:40 Brandon Goldman, Long Range Planner
Nick Frost arrived at 4:45
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND AGENDA CHANGES
Voisin/Hauck m/s to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2009 Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote: Approved
PUBLIC FORUM
Reid spoke on behalf of the Homeless Task Force. The Homeless Task Force will be doing "Project Homeless Connect" and are looking for
volunteers and sponsors. This is a one day event held on June 5, 2009 for homeless people living in the Rogue Valley to receive services such
as vision screening, employment counseling, haircuts, clothing, meals etc. '
Smith made a change to the agenda exchanging item number four, Sub-Committee reports, with items five and six, CDBG application
presentations and staff discussion and recommendation.
CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW - 2009 RFP
Reid acknowledged that the City of Ashland is an Entitlement Community and receives Community Development Block Grant Funds to help with
low income housing and different activities that serve low income people as well as for economic development. This year the City received three
applications for the CDBG funds; this year's allocation is estimated to be around $204,818.000 leaving a total of $165,367.00 available to be
awarded. Reid commented that in the evaluation packet the staff proposed some potential motions. Please know that there are many potential
motions that are available and the Housing Commission is certainly welcome to propose their own, stated Reid.
Smith mentioned there has been a discussion regarding supplemental funds becoming available. Brandon Goldman recognized that there might
be additional stimulus funds in the amount of $55,000. If that is the case then an RFP would be issued immediately as it would be a separate
award process. The city has not received the guidelines for those funds at this point.
CDBG APPLICATIONS PRESENTATION
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROGUE VALLEY (requesting $164,000) - Denise James, Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity Rogue
Valley explained that Habitat builds houses for people that are low income who are living in sub-standard conditions and who are willing to
partner with them. Habitat for Humanity looks for land to purchase or have donated to them. The houses are built from the ground up with
volunteer labor using as many professional services that are donated to them or highly discounted. The families are required to commit to five
hundred hours of sweat equity towards building the home. When the house is complete Habitat sells them for the cost of construction with a
thirty year no interest mortgage. Habitat carries the note and uses the monthly income to reinvest into more houses for other families. Ms.
James acknowledged that Habitat has currently built thirty-three houses with zero foreclosures in the twenty-one years they have been present
in the Rogue Valley. Habitat does not go back and regulate the buyers' income or require them to stay at a low income level because they want
to see families do better for themselves and look at this as a "Hand up Opportunity."
Habitat's proposal is asking for $164,000 to acquire land off of Tolman Creek Road at the old Bud's Dairy subdivision. Habitat has made an
agreement with Russ Dale, owner of the property, to purchase the land at a discounted rate. The project will consist of six houses and they
anticipate beginning construction as early as March of 2010.
Commissioners Questions
The homes are targeted to 80% Area Medium Income (AMI) families. How much would you be selling the houses for?
The target is between 30% and 60% AMI for the first owners and then 80% AMI for the second owner. The houses would sale for the cost of
construction which is averaging a little over $100,000.
Would you also be charging the owners' for the land?
Its part of the purchase price. The cost covers both the land and the house.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 26, 2009
1
']' r
Would it be deed restricted for affordability for 30 years?
It was stated in the proposal that Habitat would have a thirty year affordability which is the life of the mortgage. Ms. James said however they do
not have a problem extending that to sixty years.
Why has it taken so long to get started on the Bridge Street houses?
Ashland Community Land Trust purchased that property with CDSG funding. Habitat is working in partnership with them. They are currently
working on this project and the original time frame was to begin work now. They did have a family in the Medford area that had severe needs
consequently they made that family a priority pushing the other project back a bit.
Mr. Dale is obligated to provide affordable housing as part of his annexation and density bonus agreement. Do you see a possibility
of him offering it to you for less or even free?
No, though they did try. They were told that he still owes $170,000 on the property.
Do you have a specific source of financing for the construction?
Thirty-eight percent of all their donations are from individuals. A Large percentage is from Foundation and Grant money as well as community
partners who donate specific services and construction materials. Habitat has a re-store which is providing an income to them. Though they do
not have specific dollars set aside they are confident they will get the money said Ms. James.
Normally in condominiums the owner is required to maintain his own portion of land. Will this be the case in your project or will it be
collectively maintained? This is an important consideration as it might add to the monthly cost.
Ms. James said she did not know for sure. If there is an association in existence then they might be joining that. What the rules of the
association are is not known at this time. Currently Habitat has three other small condominium arrangements where families do pay association
fees and are responsible for small common areas they take care of.
Is this one big building?
Originally it was going to be apartments but Habitat will be making them two bedroom condominiums.
Do you have people in mind to build?
Not at this time. Typically it takes about six months and they are just beginning the process. They would target Ashland though they would not
be able to exclude others outside the community?
How do you recruit?
They have people that come to them constantly and have a list of interested clients. Other organizations and agencies send people to them
also. When they get ready to go through the process they hold an orientation meeting and send out invitations to all the people, churches as
well as newspaper ads. Try to get the word out to everybody.
Do you have your perspective home buyers go through home buying budgeting classes?
They do have budgeting classes as well as a home maintenance workshop. Ms. James said they will be bringing on an AmericorpsNista
person whose position will be tasked with developing stronger home owner education programs.
Is the criterion for awarding funds that the services be rendered in Ashland or people living in Ashland how does that affect this?
Reid stated that for land acquisition as an activity, would make it exempt. If it were a service that was being provided then it has to service
predominately Ashland people.
If you do not receive all of the funding will you still do the project?
No.
Ms. James closed the discussion by saying that because Habitat doesn't have as strong a presence in Ashland as they would like when they
begin building on Sridge Street they plan on having some community informational meetings to try and build some partnerships within just
Ashland that they currently don't have.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY (requesting $164,000) - Setty Mc Roberts, Director of Development, has returned to ask for
additional funds for the infrastructure to benefit a sixty unit low income development located on Clay Street. Prior to this application the City of
Ashland awarded CDSG funds to the HAJC in the amount of $345,000. HAJC has submitted their application to the Oregon Housing and
Community Services (OHCS) for the consolidated funding cycle on February 27, 2009. Mrs. Mc Roberts believes they have a good chance of
being funded. Key Community Development Corporation (Key Sanks) has been the investor for their last two projects and has agreed to do this
project mainly because they like Ashland. The Housing Authority has a letter of commitment from both Key Sank as the equity investor and from
US Sank for the financing.
Mrs. Mc Roberts stated that in their last application a total of $600,000 in Home Dollars was shown in the pro-forma. Home Dollars are Federal
Grants to the States to help build housing. Those Grants come with more regulations then even the CDSG funds, requiring environmental
reviews etc. all of which take six to .nine months to complete. The Housing Authority removed that money from the budget because readiness to
proceed is one thing that will help them get funded through OHCS. That decision was made because the State will want to fund a project that
will be on the ground in the fall and the Housing Authority is planning to break ground on October 1, 2009.
Mrs. Mc Roberts believes that over the next couple of years the tax credit financing will be fairly slim. A certain block of Low Income Housing
Tax Credits are awarded from the IRS to the State of Oregon and then they are given out to projects. In order to help these projects this year
the State is awarding 130% to difficult to develop areas and Ashland is one of those. The Housing Authority will find out in May if the State
awards them the project.
There is a significant amount of infrastructure required on this project. The Housing Authority is getting ready to receive bids on the Clay Street
improvement portion that will be done with the first portion of the CDSG funds that have already been awarded. That project should be
completed by June 2009.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2
MINUTES
March 26, 2009
'1' r
Goldman addressed the issue of the related Planning Action across the street known as Coming Attractions in which ODOT conditioned that that
project install a median down the center of the street. If the median is installed it would make a right hand turn lane redundant because you
could only turn right. That projects timing and this one still is a condition of approval that one or the other be installed. If this project is finished
first then that right hand turn lane is something that would have to be permitted through ODOT. Mrs. Mc Roberts said the HAJC will probably
beat the other project as they anticipate having it completed within a year consequently making it necessary to install the right hand turn.
Commissioners Questions
If we don't fund this project what do you cut out?
Nothing. It puts a strain on the Housing Authority.
Are the letters from the banks letters of interest or actual letters of commitment?
Banks don't give letters of commitment until they have underwritten the project. These letters from the Banks are actually more then Mrs. Mc
Roberts expected.
Internal Streets are not going to be finished until the end but CDSG funds need to be spent within a year?
Reid said they didn't necessarily have to spend all of the money within a year but that the City could not carry more then one and a half times its
allocation. A portion of the first funds that were granted to HAJC must be spent or HUD could take them back. Mrs. Mc Roberts said it is nice for
the contractors to be able to do everything without cutting into the streets, its a lot less wear and tear on the streets.
If the HAJC were awarded this money would they be able to do full street improvements on the South Side Street?
It's not in their budget. Mrs. Mc Roberts' concern was that if it's not in the planning recommendation doesn't it taint the City's property on the
other side. Goldman said that the staff recommendation was that in the event that the Housing Authority received full allocation of $164,000 it
be conditioned upon those improvements to that section of the street be done at this point so that the future phase doesn't have to incur those
costs. The change in timing to do it now as opposed to doing it at phase two is not a change in conditions. Mrs. Mc Roberts estimated that if
they did indeed go ahead and do the street improvements it would be around another $50,000 or $60,000.
If you only received $130,000 how would that affect the project?
The Housing Authority does not have a lot of money itself. Every time they do a development and get developer fees they take it to the next
project. That pot of money right now is being used to guarantee all the projects, making the Housing Authority a little nervous.
How confident are you that you can complete this project within a year?
We have had no problems completing other projects in this time frame.
How many jobs will this project generate?
This is an eleven million dollar project, seven million in construction. The State of Oregon says that for every dollar spent at least two dollars is
generated in the community. Reid recently read an article regarding the ripple affect of construction employment into the community which says
that each housing units employs at least four people.
Define what an Equity Investor is?
A person who buys the tax credits. Maple Terrace in Medford was purchased for 97 cents on the dollar, Scenic Heights 92 cents on the dollar
and this project will be 80 cents on the dollar. Due to the economy nobody has any profit so they don't need any tax credits creating a lower
value.
PATHWAY ENTERPRISES {requesting $30,OOO}. - Becky Simpson, CEO of Pathway Enterprises was present to represent the citizens of
Ashland that Pathway supports. Pathway Enterprises provides supported living and employment services to adults with developmental
disabilities and or mental illnesses. They provide 24 hour care if needed and they are the seventh largest employer in Southern Oregon. They
employ both people with disabilities and without disabilities. Pathways proposal is to use the money as seed money to hire three new staff
members in order to get their supportive living project off the ground. They already have the certificate from the State which means they are
ready to go. The County has verbally given their support for identified funds for individuals they already support for living in their group homes.
Pathway has two group homes in Ashland, one they own and one they rent, one in Phoenix and two in Medford.
Out of the ten individuals that live in Ashland four of them have indicated that this is their community of choice, this is where their friends are,
where they recreate and where they shop, the Ashland community is the community that they are most familiar with. The Pathway staff does not
make decisions for the individuals they serve. Their mission is to allow individuals choices and opportunities and help them attain their dreams
and visualize what they can have in life. "We understand that human beings have rights and when they are institutionalized their choices are
taken away. When given opportunities individuals will grow and thrive" said Ms. Simpson.
Commissioners Questions
With $28,400 for wages how many people does this cover and for how long?
It says within the body of the grant that Pathway will match 10% of the funding, but actually they are ready to go over and above the matching to
make this happen. A Director has already been hired and three individuals will be hired who will be the Community Living Specialists. They will
receive intense training to insure that the people will be able to move from a group home to an apartment or duplex. The money goes to salaries
and they will be done spending it by the end of the year. Once the project gets started the County's money will then help with the on going
support.
Reid commented that Marketing and Outreach are not eligible for the funds. (Pathway's requested $28,400 for wages and $1,600 for marketing
and outreach).
Are all clients in group homes and is this your first attempt to put people into their own apartments? How confident are you that the
people will be able to make that transition?
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 26, 2009
3
r r
Pathway has an entire assessment process to help them identify folks that could be successful in this process. Part of supportive living and
insuring people are successful is that you offer the support needed to insure success. Pathway fully intends to provide the support needed.
Review the funding again.
Pathway has a separate janitorial employment service division that is growing. They service some City buildings, SOU; Jackson County
buildings etc. and make money to put back into the program. Wages will meet the Ashland living wage requirements.
Could you explain what the Brokerage agent is?
The County gives us money to help support someone with a disability. The County can chose to pay the brokerage to find someone housing
and employment. The brokerage would then call Pathway and inquire if they have housing available or employment and then pay them.
You need the $30,000 this year and the projection is that the program will generate the money next year. Why do you need the money
now?
They did not have the service contracts in place until recently.
Tell us how the original group homes were established and financed.
In the 1980's there was a deinstitutionalization across the nation at which time the State asked individuals to take people back into the
communities. The State no longer wanted to house people in large institutions; it was a human rights issue as well as needing to become more
cost effective. Ms. Simpson does not remember where the initial funding came from though now it comes from the State through the County.
Does the County rent facilities or buy them?
They just represent an individual. Pathway tells the County how much they need for the budget to support that person and the County continues
to pay on a monthly basis. Typically the cost is about $3,600.00 a month to support an individual.
Do you have a place identified yet?
Not yet, but Ms. Simpson has been checking out what the community has to offer.
When the time comes to find the appropriate places for their living you're hoping you can find something in Ashland and that is
affordable.
I'm very determined stated Ms. Simpson. Not sure how to assure you 100% that the homes will be in Ashland but as the staff developing this
project it is my intent. I have no doubt there are places around Ashland that will be appropriate for the folks that we support. Reid acknowledged
that the CDBG funds would be taken back if a majority of the homes were not in Ashland.
What additional type of training would the Community Living Specialist receive?
The State requires training from the OAR's, along with CPR, first aid, and Oregon intervention systems. It's important that all staff receive the
same training to insure that each client receives the same support no matter who helps.
CDBG Award Discussion and Recommendation
The Commissioners agreed that these are three great projects and there is not enough money to fund them all.
Hardesty believes that it's very important to support the HAJC at this point in time in their project development. This project will provide housing
for sixty families as well as jobs which will stimulate the Ashland economy. Hardesty is a little concerned about the HAJC sources of funds and
feels that the City needs to support them strongly. She would recommend that they receive the entire amount of CDBG funds.
Hauck added that the HAJC proposal meets the highest priority need ranking as outlined in the COBG project proposal rating criteria.
Ayars agrees with funding the HAJC also for the same reasons. She really likes the idea of the additional employment that will be brought into
the Community because of this project. All three projects are worthy stated Ayars. The Pathway project is wonderful and she would like to see
them funded maybe with additional funds from the stimulus plan if they become available. She is supportive of the entire amount given to HAJC.
Hardesty acknowledged that the Habitat project is a good one and would like to see them more active in our community. She would like to see
Mr. Dale give away the Clay Street property because he has the obligation to create affordable housing there. It would benefit the community
greatly if he did so, said Hardesty.
Frost agrees with the support of HAJC but had two concerns. He would like to see other people get a chance next cycle at funding and is
concerned in making sure the money is spent in a timely manner.
Lewis supports Habitat for Humanity as he would really like to see them in Ashland. It sounds like the Housing Authority will be doing the project
regardless though he does support their project.
Billin commented that it feels they are too far into the Clay Street project to not support them at this point. He was concerned about Goldman's
proposal regarding the full street improvements as it seems like the HAJC are bumping up against enough problems as it is.
Benjamin confirmed that all three proposals are worth considering positively and hopes in the future they all will be funded. He agrees with
Lewis in that he would like to see Habitat take a more active role in Ashland. He is completely in support of the Clay Street project and feels
there is no choice but to see the project completed in a timely manner. Benjamin looks forward to future funding for the Habitat proposals and
acknowledged there is no doubt in his mind that pathways goal is a noble effort and will do everything in their power to implement these goals.
Smith asked, "Worst case scenario, if Snowberry doesn't happen what happens to the money." Reid responded that the Clay Street
improvements will be started soon and some of that money will go into it anyway so we will meet our timeliness for this year. If it didn't come
about then we would take the rest back and quickly do another RFP.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 26, 2009
4
1 r
Hardesty/Hauck m/s to recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson County $165,367 to fund public facilities improvements,
public right of way improvements on Clay Street and on interior streets. Voice vote: Motion passed 8-1.
The Commissioners strongly encouraged Habitat for Humanity and Pathways to continue to submit proposals and apply for funds.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Sub-committee Reports
Finance - The sub-committee met and has started looking at potential funding mechanisms.
Education - No report
Land Use - No report
Liaison Reports
Council - Voisin suggested that the Commissioners begin some conversation regarding development transfer credits during the
retreat. She also stated that the budget is really bad and services are going to have to be cut.
Parks Commission - No report
School Board - No report
Planning Commission - Benjamin said that the Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the Croman Site with a lot of
confusion regarding its timeline. Some Planning Commissioners didn't seem aware that the project had been under consideration for
over a year. Bill Molnar said that the final presentation will probably be ready in the fall. Commissioner Dimitre mentioned that not
enough consideration had been given to workforce housing.
SOU - No report
APRIL 23. 2009 AGENDA ITEMS
Homeless discussion
It was suggested to invite Melanie Mindlin to talk about the possibility of co-housing.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting - Thursday, April 23, 2009 between 4:30-6:30p.m., Community Development Building
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 26, 2009
5
"1 r
'l
-. EB 26 ?OIB
. l Guy OT ASl lIal \(1
CITY OF ASHLANtfie1d 0 Office [J CaUl
2009 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application
, ~', ..."'.f'-..,,, '''''r,' \. -",I .. .." '; V, ::,r,.,.. ~
t" 1L:v t: I.... .. c ~
These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on aU submittals.
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant Organization Name: Housina Authoritv of Jackson County
Executive Director's Name(s): Scott Foster
Board Member Names (attach separate sheet)
Applicant Mailing Address:
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford, OR 97501
Applicant Street Address:
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford, OR 97501
IRS Classification: Municipal Corporation
Federal Tax 10#: 93-0578087
Mission Statement:
~HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY
..I J.\J t: 2251 TABLE ROCK ROAD MEDFORD OR 9750 I
. ~ PHffOO (541) 779-5785 FAX (541) 857-1118
TO PROVIDE, DEVELOP AND PRESERVE DECENT, SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDlJALS
WHILE COORDINATING EFFORTS TOWARD SELF-
SUFFICIENCY
Total Employees: 50 Total Volunteers: _
II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project)
Name: Betty McRoberts
Title: Proiect Developer
Phone Number: 541-779-5785 Ext. 1023
Fax Number: 541-857 -1118
E-mail Address:betty@haic.net
III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY
Project Name or Title:
Snowberrv Brook - Sixty Units of Affordable Housina at 380 Clav Street
Expected Completion Date: Fall of 2010
Requested CDBG Funds: $ 164,000.00
Funds from 2008 COBG Award: $ 345,000.00
Funds from Other Sources: $ 294.740.97
Total Project Cost:
$ 803.740.97
2
2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list
of project objectives
The Housing Authority of Jackson County is planning to build 60 units of Affordable
Housing located at 380 Clay Street. This will be a joint effort with the City of Ashland
and the Affordable Housing providers in the region to bring much needed affordable
rental and homeowner housing to the populations with housing burdens. The first
portion to be built will be 60 units of affordable workforce rental housing developed by
the Housing Authority. This housing, named Snowberry Brook, will serve the workforce
community earning incomes in the range of 300/0 to 600/0 of area median income. This
component of the housing will be placed on 4 acres of the initia/1 0 acre site. The City
and the Housing Authority jointly purchased the land in December of 2008. The land
partition has been approved and at the completion of all requirements, the land will be
partitioned into the 4 acre portion owned by the Housing Authority and two City of
Ashland pieces totaling 6 acres. See the attached site plan. When the partitions are
recorded, the two new interior streets on the South and East of Snowberry Brook will be
dedicated to the public.
The Housing Authority is requesting $164,000 in capital funding from the City of
Ashland Community Development Block Grant allocation for 2009 in order to help
complete infrastructure improvements to these two new streets. In late 2008, the
Housing Authority applied for and received $345,000 in City of Ashland CDBG funds in
order to complete infrastructure improvements to the Clay Street frontage and the two
new interior streets. The first contract involving a portion of the $345,000 will go out
May 1, 2009 and involve the frontage on Clay Street.
This 10 acre site was previously approved in the year 2007 for a 107 unit
subdivision called Willowbrook. The Housing Authority will be responsible for fulfilling
the requirements of the previous approval for Willowbrook. These requirements were
upheld in the Planning Commission approval of the partition and site plan on February
10, 2009; they are as follows:
· Improvements to the Clay Street frontage in front of the subject property. The
subject property has approximately 680' of frontage.
· Improvements to the frontage of the 5 acre Cooper Property to the North of
the subject site. This is for the requirement of pedestrian connectivity. This
is approximately 320'.
· An additional requirement involves the one acre wetland on City Property
adjacent to the project. The wetland must be addressed before Snowberry
Brook will be issued building permits.
· Improvements to the intersection of Clay Street and Ashland Street. A right
turn lane will be required to be constructed by the time of Certificate of
Occupancy of Snowberry Brook unless Oregon Department of
Transportation installs a median on Ashland Street prior.
3
'. r
The Housing Authority was awarded $345,000 in CDBG funding in December 2008
to help defray off-site infrastructure costs. The Housing Authority is applying in this
competitive round for the available $164,000 to apply to the street costs. The total cost
of the housing project, including the majority of the above mentioned off-site
improvements will be $11,390,240. The Authority is applying to the State of Oregon on
February 27,2009 for the funding needed to build the housing.
The Housing Authority, at this time, is anticipating a contribution of $1 ,036,000 in
Authority funds; assuming the $164,000 in CDBG is awarded. In addition, the project
will defer a $300,000 Developer Fee into the project for the purpose of generating basis.
This $300,000 will be repaid to the Authority over 12 years at 00/0 interest. The
$1,036,000 will be set up as a loan to the Housing Authority with a 40 year amortization
at 1 % interest. These loans are cash flow loans and will be paid from the project cash
flow after all other requirements of the budget are met. Low Income Housing Tax Credit
projects are not flush with cash flow; hence the low interest rates attached to these
loans. These funds are required to be loaned to the project by IRS regulations. This
match from the Housing Authority represents 11.7% of the total project cost.
The CDBG funding is crucial to the development of the affordable housing for the
target population. The funding right now is precarious; fenders are not eager to lend
without ample debt coverage and Low Income Housing Tax Credit equity investors have
all but disappeared. The Housing Authority feels very fortunate to have the team
assembled and ready to go for this project. One of the reasons they were agreeable to
joining the project was the City's investment in helping to make the housing possible;
participating in the purchase of the land, deferring the SOC charges and awarding
CDBG funds. They realize the City of Ashland has a commitment to affordable housing
not seen in many places. See attached letters of commitment from Key COC and
US Bank.
For the purposes of this application the project is the construction of the public
infrastructure for the benefit of the affordable housing.
· $ 245,456.55 Improvements to Clay Street including the frontage in front of
the Cooper Property. This is approximately 1000 linear feet. This includes
street improvements to City standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking strip,
lighting, storm drainage, sewer and water lines. Bioswales will be installed in
the parking strips to filter the runoff from the project before it reaches the
public storm system.
· $ 417,795.94 This is the cost of the installation of the two interior streets
circling the Snowberry project running East and West and North and South;
within the 10 acre site. These streets are for the benefit of the affordable
housing project and will be developed to City standards for half street
improvements.
· $ 40,000.00 Wetland Development required of the Snowberry Brook
approval; mitigation and development.
· $ 100,488.48 Cost of the Right turn lane at the intersection of Clay Street and
Ashland Street. This is a requirement of the City for the Certificate of
4
. r
Completion of Snowberry Brook. This is a holdover requirement from the
Willowbrook approval.
· TOTAL $ 803,740.97
Normally the Housing Authority of Jackson County would not have the funds to
leave in a project such as Snowberry Brook. Each project is a stand alone entity
generating a Developer fee which the Authority either uses to help build the
project by deferring it into the project for the 12 years or using it to pay the
expenses of the Development. Ashland has been a particularly difficult area for
the Authority to develop or acquire housing due to the high cost of land. The
Housing Authority has 8 units of Public Housing in Ashland, four of them single
family homes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has given
the Authority permission to sell these four homes and invest the proceeds in
more cost efficient housing. The proceeds from the sale of the single family
public housing units will be used to make up a major portion of the equity gap in
this project attributable to high land costs and extensive off-sites. The Authority
will be putting approximately $1,0361000 of equity into this project. These funds
from the sale of the four public housing units will help leverage 60 units of new
affordable workforce housing. The Authority needs the COBG funding to
complete the funding of the development because there are no other funds to
make up this gap. To date the Authority has been able to sell one house but is
hopeful the market will soon pick up.
The Housing Authority was not the only entity aware of the problems involved
with housing Ashland's population of lower income persons; whether they are renters or
homeowners. The #1 Goal in the City is to Increase the supply of affordable rental
housing for extremely low, low, and moderate-income families. The City has
documented this need in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. There are many examples
in the document to illustrate cost burden for both renters and homeowners alike. The
statistics used for the Consolidated Plan were primarily taken from the 2000 Census
Data. By examining the problems that have developed since those statistics were
gathered, it is easy to see the plight of low income persons in their quest for decent
housing has become more difficult.
The median household income increased g% in Ashland between 2000 and 2007
according to Census data. The median value of owner occupied housing increased by
1210/0. Median gross rent increased 31010 in that same time period from $597 per month
to $783 per month. For renter families this represented a 130/0 increase in rent as a
percentage of household income.
The State of Oregon has identified Ashland as one of the communities in the State
where renters have the highest rent burden; paying more than 300/0 of their income for
rent and utilities. The information was recently published by Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department as part of the Consolidated Funding Cycle process.
Eighty-two percent (82%)) of the renter households this housing will serve in the City of
Ashland are rent burdened, according to the State. The State's definition of workforce
:)
. r
housing for the CFC is 300ic! to 600/0 of Area Median Income, published by HUD. By
using the American Family Survey data for 2007 it is estimated there are 1821 renter
households in Ashland earning less than 600ic! of AMI. Over nine hundred of these
renter families fall into the 300/0 to 600/0 of AMI category.
The Authority staff has attended many public meetings concerning this housing to
be built in Ashland. The statistics in this application are to clarify the need for the
housing. There are low income families living in Ashland; 100/0 of the families are
living below the poverty line. Nineteen percent of families with children less than 18
years of age are living below the poverty line in Ashland. Thirty-four percent of Female
headed households in Ashland with children under 18 years of age are living below the
Poverty line; higher than Medford or Jackson County. This does not tell the whole story.
There have been questions as to why we should build this housing because then it will
encourage people to move to Ashland? The Housing Authority staff called local
employers to ask them where their employees were living. Many of them responded
with the refrain" my employees cannot afford to live here so they drive from Medford or
White City". This contributes to air pollution for everyone in the Valley. It also could be
a stressor for a low income person to make sure their automobile will make it to their
job; especially in this economy. Attached are letters of support for the project;
many from employers in Ashland.
The Ashland School District has on their website a commissioned study on the
state of Ashland schools. Accord ing to the study, one of the conclusions reached for
the school closures is the lack of affordable housing. It is very difficult for young families
with children to buy a home and there is a lack of decent affordable rental properties.
The rents at Snowberry will be approximately $529 for a two bedroom and $604 for a
three bedroom. Snowberry will also have (8) Project Based Housing Choice Vouchers
to help families at lower incomes. In addition, it is important for Ashland to look at the
subsidized housing it is losing; the older HUD and Rural Development properties that
are expiring and being sold on the private market. Some of the residents may receive a
Housing Choice Voucher but if there is no available housing for them to rent they will
need to go elsewhere. The Authority maintains roughly 90+ HCV's at anytime in the
Ashland community.
Just one more comment to address; the solar and zero energy concerns. Why are
we not building a more cost effective project for the residents; a more environmentally
friendly project? We are building a very environmentally friendly project. The Housing
Authority has been working toward these goals on each project we build. incorporating
new materials and techniques as they become affordable for our budgets. Some of the
products and techniques are a zero cost difference; it was just a matter of working with
a group of architects and contractors educated in Green Building. The State of Oregon
requires in funding, compliance with one of three standards; the Earth Advantage for
Multifamily Buildings, the Enterprise Green Community or the LEED for New
Construction. Snowberry Brook meets or exceeds the Earth Advantage for Multifamily
Building Standards.
6
. I
Apparently Ashland had been trying to purchase this property for a period of time
before the Authority became involved. The location is perfect for affordable housing.
There are other affordable housing groups working in Ashland hoping to utilize a portion
of the remainder of the property for additional housing; either rental or homeownership.
With this in mind the Authority designed the project leaving a strip of land to the South
along the Southern interior street deep enough to place Single family lots. Likewise, the
street to the East will not only serve the Snowberry Brook units but also give access to
the City's remaining acreage to the East.
These two new streets will wrap around Snowberry Brook and someday continue
on. The improvements required are full street pavement with sidewalk, curb, gutter,
lighting and park strip on the Snowberry side. On the City's side there will be a .
temporary curb to keep people from driving into the field. The City will finish their
improvements at a later date.
If the housing component is funded in the Spring 2009 CFC, construction will begin
on the project as soon as October, 2009. Construction of 60 units will take less than
one year, based on past experience. The two interior streets will be constructed in
conjunction with the housing project. The frontage improvements to Clay Street which
will be paid with a portion of the CDSG funds already awarded are to be installed by
June, 2009. The requirement for a portion of the City's past CDBG funding to be spent
by this date necessities the two stage construction process.
At this time the cost estimate for the total off-site project is $803,740.97. The first
portion of the improvements, the improvement to Clay Street frontage in front of the ten
acre site at 380 Clay St. will commence by May 1, 2009 and be complete and paid out
by the end of June, 2009. This initial phase will cost approximately $170,000. The total
estimate for the Clay Street Frontage is $245,456.55. The portion in front of the Cooper
5 acres will be completed at a late date; it must be completed prior to occupancy. The
first priority is to finish Clay Street in front of 380 Clay Street with the CDBG funding and
then apply what is left of the CDBG funding to the two interior streets. At that point the
two allocations of CDBG funding will be exhausted and other project funds will be used
to finish the off-sites.
Objectives of the Affordable Housing Project:
· Provide 60 units of housing affordable to families earning 300/0 -
600/0 of area median income.
· Put restrictions on the timeframe to make this housing stay
affordable for it's economic life.
· Disperse the affordable housing throughout Jackson County to
areas where it is needed the most.
· Decrease the gasoline consumption as persons working in Ashland
can afford to live where they work.
· Help the communities diversify by bringing young families and
children back to the area.
7
· Be good stewards of the land; help to create the wetland and
maintain the natural state.
· Build the most energy efficient housing possible within the budget
allowable.
· Continue to maintain the internal controls and systems within the
Housing Authority that will make this housing good for residents
and for the community.
· Deliver the appropriate services to the residents of the housing to
make their lives less stressful and to give them opportunities to
reach their goals.
The COBG funding for the infrastructure improvements to the public streets is the
UProject" for this application. To be eligible it must directly serve the affordable
housing. One hundred percent of the units will be rented to residents earning
less than 600/0 of AMI. This is the upper limit for Low Income Housing Tax
Credits, one of the funding sources requested in the Consolidated Funding
Cycle. The other funding sources for the housing will be Oregon grants which
will be loaned to the project, Oregon Lender Tax Credits to lower the interest
rate, Managing Member Equity (Housing Authority) and the permanent loan. The
ownership will be a Limited Liability Corporation with the Housing Authority as the
Managing Member. At the end of the 15 years the Limited Partner will step out of
the project and the Housing Authority will continue on as sole owner for the
period of affordability; 60 years. This will be the Authority's sixth project in this
model. The rents will be affordable to families at 500/0 of area median income.
The bedroom mix will be 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units containing both flats and
townhomes. The project will have an onsite community room for the residents,
including a computer lab. A playground for the children will be provided. COBG
funding cannot be used for the construction of the housing project onsite.
3) Property and Project Information relating to acquisition, rehabifitation,
site clearance, and development;
Details regarding any property proposed for acquisition indicating
the following:
The CDBG funding will not be used for acquisition of the land. However,
because the improvements are only eligible because of the housing it is
necessary to answer the questions.
a) Property location relative to jobs, schools, transportation, shopping and
services
There is an area map attached to the application as Attachment A. This is a
good location for residents to walk or bike to work, shopping and services. The
public transportation is available on a major arterial less than a half mile from the
site. Schools are nearby.
8
b) Total floor area of buildings, and size of land site
The approximate square footage of the buildings will be 56,500 sf. The land area
is 163,350 sf.
c) Types of residential units, number of each type unit, and total number of
bedrooms
At this time the project will consist of a mix of 12 - one bedroom flats, 12- two
bedroom flats, 26 - two bedroom townhomes and 10 - three bedroom flats.
d) Number of extremely-low, low-, and moderate-income units proposed
The project will be available to families earning less than 600/0 of AMI. Rents will
primarily be affordable to families at 500/0 of AMI.
e) Number of units accessible to the disabled
The Housing Authority always builds 50/0 of the units fully accessible to
wheelchair residents. An additional 20/0 are accessible to the hearing impaired.
The standard used is Section 504. In addition, all ground floor units meet Fair
Housing. The project will also meet the State of Oregon's Visitability
requirement.
f) Square footage of units and description of amenities such as private
balconies or storage areas
The project square footages are based on the last project, Scenic Heights, which
is under construction.
One bedroom units: 665 sf
Two bedroom flats: 888 sf
Two bedroom townhomes: 948 sf
Three bedroom flats: 1182 sf
The State of Oregon has minimum requirements for indoor and outdoor storage
in its projects. The Authority installs covered balconies and patios for the
enjoyment of the residents.
g) Square footage of common areas such as community or laundry rooms
The community room will be approximately 1150 sf. The units come equipped
with an Energy Star washer and dryer, negating the reason for having a common
laundry room.
h) Square footage of commercial space, if any NA
i) Year property was built. NA
j) Describe condition of any existing housing proposed for
acquisition and any alterations planned. Briefly discuss the total cost of the
proposal relative to new construction. NA
9
. r
k) If the project involves rehabilitation attach a description of the work to be
completed. NA
I) Describe the target population. Include the suitability of the property for the
target population, the tenant selection process, brief description of any residential
services and the resources identified to fund the services.
The target population is the workforce population earning 300/0 to 60% of AMI.
For a family of three this currently cannot exceed $28.540 at the time of
occupancy. These incomes are adjusted by family size for the area and
published each year by HUD. This situation might apply to a single parent with
two children, There are approximately 900 renter households in Ashland earning
between 300/0 and 60% of AMI.
The project is suitable because of the location to services, transportation, schools
and because of the park and YMCA next door. There are also service jobs within
walking distance.
The residents place their name on a waiting list for this housing. The Authority
checks for criminal background and former landlord references. The Authority
provides services to the residents, both onsite and off. There is a full time staff at
the Authority whose job it is to identify the needs of a particular population and
then deliver those services to the residents. Examples include computer classes,
budgeting classes. second language classes and a complete long list of other
options. For instance, many of the housing communities are now interested in
starting a community garden. The resident services are paid with the operating
budget of the project just like the maintenance and occupancy staff. This has
been required by the State of Oregon for many years and the Authority is in total
agreement with the policy. Each project has a unique characteristic because of
its location to services; Snowberry Brook has funding in the operating budget to
pay for a YMCA membership for the children living in the project. This will give
them access to recreational facilities and give their parents reduced rates on
services offered by the YMCA.
m) Indicate how many years the property will remain affordable and the
mechanism that will be used to ensure the affordability period.
The L1HTC has an affordability restriction of 30 years by federal statute. The
Housing Authority has as its mission to own these projects for their useful life; the
Housing Authority is committing to 60 years for the Snowberry Brook housing.
4} Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the
eligible
target population receiving direct benefit from these services (Iow~income~
homeless, special needs).
]0
The COBG funding from the City will not be used to pay for resident services.
The services mentioned in 3 (I) above are provided as part of the ongoing
operations of the housing development.
5) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks with
estimated start and completion of each task (please complete attached
Form A - Project Schedule).
The COBG funding from this 2009 grant award will be used to pay for the
improvements to the public infrastructure required by the City to serve the
housing development. These funds will be used on the two interior streets. Clay
Street frontage will be completed with the funding from the prior award of COSG
funding. The Schedule will include the entire off-site project; the Clay Street
frontage, the two interior streets, the wetlands mitigation and the right turn lane
on Clay Street. Please see Form A for the Schedule.
6) Financial Information
A budget describing total cost, cost per task, existing (secured) project
funds and unfunded costs. Identify any and all source{s) of funding. This
would include other Federal and State grants and loans, monetary
donations, in-kind contributions, volunteer labor, donation of materials and
supplies, etc. In addition to addressing the questions below please
complete attached Form B - Uses of Funding & Form C - Sources of
Funding.
Provide a detailed financial description of the proposed project, including
Rent Schedule, Sources/Uses of Funding and Operating Budget
Income/Expense, and utility allowances
a) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating
budget. Include projected rent increases, other sources of income
for operation and maintenance expenses, and inflationary factors.
For social service award requests please include financial
assumptions relating to increases in wages, materials and overhead,
or other costs associated with the proposed activity.
The Authority starts building a project proforma with the knowledge of what it
takes to operate the project on a day to day basis. This information is taken from
the Housing Authority's database of 900+ units of different types and ages of its
housing. The other assumptions are the rents; rents the Authority charges for a
certain population or rents the funding sources require to be charged. This
results in a Net Operating Income for the project. This is the amount left to pay
for debt service and required cash flow. Items to be paid from cash flow could be
deferred developer fee, other cash flow dependent loans or required fees to
II
lenders and regulatory agencies. The NOI will dictate at this point how much
loan can be carried by the project.
The gap between what it takes to build a project and what the loan will cover is
where the grant and tax credit equity is needed to make projects happen. In the
final proformas of this project the Authority is estimating the project can carry a
loan of $2,700,000 with an additional deferred developer fee loan of $300,000.
The project costs are $11,390,240. This gap must be filled with tax credit equity
and grant funding or the project cannot happen. The majority of the $1,036,000
in cash from the Authority will come from the sale of the four Public Housing
single family units in Ashland.
Certain assumptions used in building proformas; 20/0 yearly increase in rents, 30/0
yearly increase in operating expenses, $350 per unit per year Replacement
Reserve contribution, utility allowances follow the Housing Authority' utility
allowance charts and are updated annually. The targeted rents for this project
are $439 for a one bedroom, $529 for a two bedroom and $604 for a three
bed room.
In the prior application for CDBG funding the Authority used Construction
Engineering Consultants to estimate the costs for the street improvements. This
Engineering firm had completed the preliminary work for the Willowbrook
subdivision. For this application we obtained cost estimates from Adroit
Construction. Adroit is building the Scenic Heights project in Central Point for the
Housing Authority and has current information available. Scenic Heights is 70010
complete.
The projects will be competitively bid at the time of construction. The first phase
will be the street improvements to Clay Street including all necessary utilities in
the street for the construction of Snowberry Brook. The improvements on this
phase of the project will be completed up to and including the curb. The reason
to stop at this point is because it will be much more effective to add the bioswales
and sidewalks after the actual housing is complete. The second phase of
spending the CDBG funding will be either just prior to the construction of the
housing or concurrent with the housing. Required utilities to be run in these two
new streets will be needed; water lines. power. storm sewer and sewer. These
two new streets on the interior of the 10 acres will wait until they are dedicated to
the City of Ashland.
b) Was consideration given to remaining economic life of the property
and potential cost increases such as unanticipated repair or relocation
costs? Maintenance Costs? Operating Costs?
The Housing Authority's projects are designed with inflation factors. They are
also designed with Replacement Reserve Funds; in this case $350 per unit per
yr. The restructuring of debt at the refinancing periods is the most difficult. This
12
is why the debt placed on the project now must be analyzed for the promised
term of affordability; in this case 60 years. This project will be refinanced three
times by the age of 60 years. It is vital to keep these projects viable over the
years and new debt is sometimes the only way to get the funds for major
upgrades; especially in the later years. A project burdened with too much debt in
the beginning is unable to refinance when the time comes.
c) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating
budget.
This is covered in 6 a) above in some detail. The rental income is the income for
the project. The f1affordable housing subsidy" is all in upfront in the form of
capital contributions to bring down the loan amount. At that point it is the
responsibility of the sponsor to operate the housing for the next 60 years with no
other infusion of grant capital. This is why it is important to have experienced
owners.
d) Discuss non-typical expenses or those outside industry standards.
A private market landlord would not necessarily set aside a Replacement for
Reserve. When it came time to do major repairs they would go to the bank and
get a loan. These projects are not allowed to take on more debt and even if they
could, the budgets could not support extra debt. The restricted rents for 60 years
are what the banks look at when appraising a project for a new loan. These
restricted rents bring down the value of the project, consequently the sponsor
must plan carefully for refinancing at years 20 and 40.
These projects pay fees to every regulatory agency and lending institution that
has a need to monitor restrictions on the property.
The State of Oregon requires the owners provide Resident Services to move the
residents along their path to Self-Sufficiency.
Just getting a project like this built is more costly due to the layers of review
required by the many, many funding sources and their attorneys.
e) Attach letters of funding commitment from other sources, if available.
Attached is a letter of interest from US Bank. Attached is a signed LOI from Key
CDC for purchasing the Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
f) Will a property tax exemption be requested for the project? If so, what is
the estimated dollar value of the tax exemption over the twenty-year
period?
The Housing Authority's properties are statutorily exempt from paying property
taxes. This includes any properties the Authority is involved with such as a
13
L1HTC project or a project where the Authority is
authorizing statute is ORS 307.092
acting General Manager. The
(7) Eligibility for Federal Funding
Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project?
· Property Acquisition
· New Construction (non-residential)
· Removal of Architectural Barriers
· Rehabilitation Costs
· Development Costs
· Client Services
· Specification Preparation (Construction/Rehab)
· Relocation Benefits (if required)
· Appraisal (for acquisitions)
Federal funding has certain regulatory requirements. The
following information is required to determine eligibility for
federal funding.
No, the CDBG costs will be used for the benefit of the affordable housing project
at 380 Clay Street and not for the new construction of the project. All of the
funding will be spent for the construction of the infrastructure improvements in
the public right of way.
General Information
a)ls the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? If not. explain.
The property at 380 Clay Street was annexed into the City of Ashland in
March of 2006.
b)Specify the proposed tenant or client income level; state in terms of
percentage below area median for the Medford-Ashland standard
metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The current income guidelines are
included on page 10 above.
The residents of the affordable housing must be 60% of AMI or below to live
in a L1HTC project at initial eligibility. They do not need to move as their
incorne goes up but the next available tenant must meet the income
guidelines. The use of Oregon Lender Tax Credits in a project demands the
interest rate reduqtion be passed on to the residents in resulting lower rents.
The rents are projected to be affordable to families at 500/0 of AMI.
c)Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project.
14
The Housing Authority has purchased the 1 a acre site in conjunction with the
City of Ashland. The process for site partition and site review has been
approved by the Planning Commission.
Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific
Information
d)WiII permanent housing units be converted or demolished? If so, how many?
NO
e)ls the proposed housing site located in a 1 aD-year flood plain? NO
f)Has a Level 1 environmental assessment been done for the site? If yes, attach
the report.
The Housing Authority will be completing a Phase I Review as a requirement
for any funding source involved in the housing development. The Authority
has not completed one at this time. The Authority procured Lee Brennen,
P.E., Agate Engineering, to assess the site sufficient for our comfort; the
Phase I will be a requirement for funding.
g)ls the proposed housing site located adjacent to a major arterial road or near a
railroad? NO
h)ls the proposed site located adjacent to an aboveground flammable storage
tank? NO
i)Will the proposed project impact historic features? If yes, explain.
NO, there is an old house on the 10 acres but it is not on the Authority's 4
acres. The old house is not salvageable. This was determined in earlier
discussions with the former owner and the City.
8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may
request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two
years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to
successfully complete the project.
The Housing Authority was formed by the Jackson County Commissioners in
1969 to assist low income persons in obtaining affordable housing. At this time
the Authority assists 1705 families in Jackson County with Housing Choice
Vouchers in the private landlord community. Approximately 99 of these vouchers
are being used in the Ashland area. In addition the Housing Authority owns and
operates 946 units of housing rented at below market rates to the low income
renter population in Jackson County.
15
The Authority has experienced and long term staff. Scott Foster, Executive
Director, has been the Director since 1986. Prior to coming to Jackson County
he was the Director of the Josephine County Housing Authority. He has forty
years of experience in construction, development and management of housing.
In addition, he is an expert in the myriad of regulations accompanying HUD and
other Federal, State and local programs.
The Authority has experienced staff to develop affordable projects. The five staff
persons in the Development Department acquire land or projects and take them
through the funding and land use processes, hiring consultants as needed_ Betty
McRoberts, Director of Development, has been with the Authority for 20 years.
The Department is experienced in carrying out Davis Bacon and BOll
regulations in spending Federal and State funding on construction projects. The
Department has one project under construction at this time; Scenic Heights, a 48
unit new construction project in the City of Central Point. Certificate of
Completion should be achieved in August 2009. The Authority recently finished
a $1.25 mill rehab to the acquisition project, Rogue River Estates, on Poplar
Drive in Medford. This project is a preservation project of 94 Section 8 Elderly
units purchased in May, 2008.
The Authority manages all of its owned properties and also one tax credit
property for ACCESS, Inc; Barnett Townhomes. Tenant selection and
maintenance are done from a centralized computerized system. This system
affords standardization of policies and regulations and affords the Authority a
method for tracking success or failure.
9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low~
moderate-income families, or individuals with special needs?
The Agency is required to provide a resident services program at each
site. This is discussed in 3 (I). The Resident Services Department at the
Authority assesses each resident population to see what is required for a
population to promote their self-sufficiency. The department then targets
programs specifically to those needs.
10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low.., low- and
moderate-income individuals or individuals with special
needs.
a) For proposed projects serving a low-income area (ie public facility
improvements, community center or other neighborhood serving facility),
provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of
information for the following statistics: NA
· Number of extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals served
in the project area on an annual basis.
· Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis.
16
. r
b) For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e. homeless families,
battered women, people with AIDS, special needs populations, etc.)
provide the following data, including document sources of information for
statistics.
Specify the target population to be served.
Number of low and moderate-income individuals in target population to be
served on an annual basis. (This count cannot include repeated visits or
use by the same individuals.)
Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual
basis.
Percent low and moderate income.
The target population is Jow income renters earning 60% of median area
income and below.
11 )Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income
individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income
individuals.
The housing is limited to the income level 60% of AMI and below at initial lease-up.
12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and moderate-income
housing to be demolished or converted to another use (see attachment
"Relocation Strategy Guidance"). If so, explain. NO
13)Project Feasibility
Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use
issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the
administrative capacity to complete the project proposed.
Describe the feasibility of the project:
a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to
complete and or manage the project proposed? Briefly describe applicants
capacity and experience in providing, maintaining and managing housing,
particularly low-income housing similar to the proposed project.
The Housing Authority has completed 6 Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects
in recent years. There is a learning curve involved in this financing. The
Housing Authority receives excellent reviews managing the properties for
compliance with tax credit requirements and State regulations. The current staff
has developed 26 properties; 16 new construction and 10 acquisitions and rehab.
17
Most of these developments required multiple funding sources resulting in
overlapping compliance issues in future years.
The Authority has a wealth of knowledgeable staff to complete the project for
which the CDBG funding will be used; the completion of infrastructure. The
Maple Terrace Project on Mace Road in Medford required an extension of the
water and sewer line down Mace Road and these improvements were completed
with CDBG funds from the City of Medford. The Authority spends an average of
$400,000 a year in CDBG funding for homeowner housing rehabilitation
throughout Jackson and Josephine Counties. Betty McRoberts has been
applying for and administering these CDBG funds for 20 years and will be
responsible for the Ashland CDBG infrastructure project. The Lilac Meadow
Project, built in 2004, required 900+ feet of public street improvements
constructed for the City of Medford. This construction involved public funds and
public right of way.
b) Are the ongoing operating expense and maintenance reserve
estimates reasonable? The project proformas for Snowberry Brook are
designed to support the project for 60 years through two additional refinances;
one required at year 20 when the Oregon Lender Tax Credits go away and one
later on when the project needs a major refinance for repairs, most likely around
year 40. The initial operating budget is ample and has a 30/0 increase for
expenses and a 2%) increase for rental income. These budgets are underwritten
by the State of Oregon, the lender and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Equity Investor before funding.
c) Does the applicant have a purchase option on the property,
letter of support from the property owner(s), or some other assurance that
the property is available for acquisition?
The Housing Authority and the City of Ashland purchased the property on
December 18, 2008. Now that the partition plan is approved, the property will be
surveyed and the plat will be recorded; including the two new interior streets.
COBG funding will not be used on private property, only on the public right of
way.
d) Does the project require temporary or permanent relocation and if so
have comparable
units been identified and costs of relocation been accurately determined?
Provide a tenant relocation strategy, cost estimate and existing tenant
survey to address federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements which
may impact your project. NO
e) Describe relocation strategy for the project if applicable.
f) Does the project require land use approvals such as Site
18
. r
Review, Annexation, Zone Change, Minor Land Partition, Demolition, or
Conditional Use permits?
A land partition was required to separate the Authority's portion from the City's
portion before Snowberry Brook can proceed with construction. It does not
require a partition in order to apply for the housing funding in February of 2009.
The project is properly zoned and will not require any conditional use permits.
The two new City streets will be dedicated at the time of the partition.
g) Has a pre-application been completed with the Ashland
Planning Department?
The application for site partition and amended site review was submitted on
January 9, 2009. The Planning Commission voted to approve the site partition
and site review on February 10,2009. Since this was an amendment to the
Willowbrook subdivision approval there was very little to consider.
h) What is the condition of any improvements on the property and what is
the expected life of the
property?
There are some old buildings on the property, none of which are usable
according to several assessments obtained by the former owner. There will be
some expense in the future to dispose of them. These buildings are located on
the future City portion of the 10 acres.
i) Describe commitment of project funding from other sources
The Authority is making application to the State of Oregon's Consolidated
Funding Cycle on February 27th for the funding to complete the project.
This includes the LIHTC's, the Oregon lender Tax Credits and Oregon
Trust Fund and Weatherization grant.
US Bank has given a Letter of Interest in providing both the construction
financing and the permanent financing using Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits to
lower the interest rate by 40/0. US Bank was the lender on the Housing Authority's
recent tax credit/bond financed acquisition of 94 units of Section 8 elderly
housing on Poplar Street in Medford. KeyBank Community Development Corporation
has provided a Letter of Interest in purchasing the Federal Low Income Housing Tax
credits, if awarded. Key was the investor on the Authority's last two tax credit projects.
Firm letters of commitment will follow after funding award from the State of Oregon.
14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on
historic or architecturally significant properties or on the environment. All
projects will be subjected to an Environmental Review Report and certain
19
projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an
Environmental Assessment.
There is a significant wetland near the project. It is less than an acre in size. The
current owner submitted a wetland proposal that fit his needs involving moving of
the wetlands to different areas of the site. The site plan now being considered has
less impact on the wetland but will require a new mitigation plan. The mitigation
plan is being completed by a consultant certified by the Department of State
Lands. This is necessary for development of the site.
The Authority is experienced in completing Environmental Assessments for
Housing Rehab and Housing Development Projects. If the project requires a
consultant the Authority uses Agate Engineering or another approved firm.
15) Please attach any other statistical data, letters of support, applicable
experience of the sponsor, and evidence of financial support from other
funding sources, or other material you believe will assist the City in its
review of your proposal.
Other attachments include cost estimates from Adroit Construction for the off site
work as well as a cost estimate for the complete construction of Snowberry Brook.
This total estimate does not include the right turn lane on Clay and Ashland Street.
I have demonstrated the cost to complete this improvement, $100,488.48, but the
City of Ashland may not require this improvement as a result of the Oregon
Department of Transportation's intent to place a median in Ashland Street. The
estimate from Adroit for the construction and the estimate for the overall cost of the
project; the $11,390,240, does not include this improvement. The Housing
Authority has agreed to complete the improvement in front of the Cooper property
to the north of Snowberry Brook.
Attached is a list of the Board of Commissioners of the Authority.
Attached are a Sources Page and an Income Page from the State of Oregon
Consolidated Funding Cycle Application.
.
, .
16) CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 23-24). Attach Forms A, 8, & C
20
GITYi0F\~:$HLAN[)
20(j9jA.rQ'dtam;~.eit..
C.OBG.A9~E1G'AT'I(fjN/t3ffiEQKLIST
In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to
ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to
address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where
potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must
evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be
applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are
not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application.
//f,~'~J\Pfil i9ilh~~)~~':Q~gtpY~tJ,.... : .'. .... ....Y:~s.....;...... ....... ;:No oN/Ax.'.
............>. . .... " ............ .... .... .' '.',,' ,,'"
1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit
of government? X
-
2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet
HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for ~idelines)? X
--
3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written
income documentation? X
4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X
commitment to a proposed project?
5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization?
X
-~---_. ----...-- ..----.. ...
6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project
previou~ly? X
._- --
7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required
reports and accountability to the City as required by
HUD? X
EtProjectLo~tl~i<:>l"~...ti4~'tld lJse IssUe~f Yes ~ , No>'" N/A
1. Has a location for the project been selected?
X
2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City
limits? X
..
3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and
land use laws? X
..
4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review,
partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit
required? X
f---------'-~-~...._.- . .--- .- --
5. Have these approvals been obtained?
._---_.._._--~_._._...__.._...__._._.___I X =}-i
T~s' the project comply with current building ~ X -
requirements?
..--..-.-..-- - ----.......- ---
7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X
requirements?
22
... r
($~,r;nVir()"'m~n~~I'l~$..q~$;" ", " " ,":" ',':/,: ",....<: ,> :';, Yes .No ' . Nl~,.:,."",
1. Is the project located in the 1 DO-year floodplain? X
2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X
3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X
on the project site?
4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X
5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X
1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify.
6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X
near the railroad?
7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X
ground flammable storaQe tank?
8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X
50 years or older?
9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X
review upon receiving a COBG award?
>Q.;4~'~Pt.R~q9ir~f:h~Q~$)H'" :'. '>">:" ;.<.' " , " .> Yt:!.$ ,,". No iNIA<;.:".~
'" ,';>>',',
1. Does the project involve construction over $2.000 in X
cost?
. - --._-------- --
2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X
; requireme~ts?
3. Will the project trigger BOLl wage requirements? X
--..
4. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City X
awarded grants or contracts? - -----.-..- -
E.Di~pla C~tr1el1fat1~RtlI6cati9n Yes No " NII\:,.,,'"
. ,". ,'..". .. . ~ .".. ."' ... '. ',......" .
1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X
..
2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X
3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X
~'. ... Yes No 'N/A .......
/F~ .F?~opert.YD~ta . --
.... . :
1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple I
title? X
--.
2. Are taxes on the property current? X
----.. - ----..-..---
3. Is insurance current? X
~Wtiat is the current debt against the propert??------ I $0
L______ ________I_~...__________
~- What is the current use of the property? I R-2 t I
-.--.....- .-.--------------------.-..--..-----1. ____ _______
6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? I yes
Uf yes, what is the asses~~9 value of the proJ?~t!Y-? l
23
-- I
Form A-1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
Housin Pro osals - The Entire Housing Pro"ect
.:.i,J.i,:)W:;'}A, ,Aj,;;~,;~~tl~j~y,,~, ;,...' .' ..'c:/;,X,i;:'}:};:,~M~,f.~~<Q~,~i:!..:i:"',
;,lilf~'IL'~~~11f;;';' .
Option
Site Acquisition
Plan Development
Pre-app Iication
Land Use Approval
Construction Plans
Final Bids
Contractor Selection
Building Permits
);~r.~'Q:f;~P~JJ~J~,i~~'~Yi'."""','
local
state
federal
Non-govern~ent
other
I1Qat.l:ApPli ~~fiQn.$> .......
Construction loan
Permanent
~()rj~~~(I~fiQll\.~hase.' .'.
Construction 10-1-2009 10..31-2010
Certificate of Occupancy 10-31-2010
Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule
, ':\,":~900P~~~i~,tI,!m~*~>'..""".
11-04-2008
10-1-2008
1 0-24-2008
11-5-2008
3-1-2009
9-1-2009
6-1-2009
6-1-2009
12-18-2008
2-25..2009
1-9-2008
2-10..2009
6-1..2009
10-1-2009
8-1..2009
8..1-2009
10-17 -2008
2-27 -2009
2-27 -2009
2-2009
2-2009
24
, I
Form A-1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
COSG GRANT PROJECT ONLY
H,i.M';{?':,)!'.'W<;;:?f:;,1.;~W~~~i~~W:;tt}~;,-:-;(X:>~ ,..;. ....~.......,:.i', ..........
Y'$i.J@$'~l'~'o~J";gi~H;;i;'.'W'.;n~,':',N:"'" .........
!~~.y;~IQPffl~ijfA\!:)N...J. ;:;?:::?<" ". ..'"" "'i'"
Option
Site Acquisition
Plan Development
Pre-application
Land Use Approval
Construction Plans - Clay
Street Improvements
Final Bids - Clay Street
Improvements
Contractor Selection - Clay
Street Improvements
Building Permits - Clay Street 3-15-2009
Improvements
Construction Plans - 2 Interior 3-1-2009
Streets
Final Bids - 2 Interior Streets 9-1-2009
. Contractor Selection - 2 6-1-2009
Interior Streets
---
Building Permits - 2 Interior
Streets
<:;r~tif~p'pli~;~t.iQh~. '. ','. .. '.' .'
Local- Ashland CDBG -~. 10-17-2008
$345,000 __
Local- Ashland CDBG - 2-27-2009
$164,000
state 2-27 -2009
federal
Non-@vernment
other
JJo~'I1~pplJ~~tO.~6~/ ,....'222.'>>&.. ,.'. ....,.. ..' ..... ',....,;.,,'//<>.//'
Construction loan 1 ~15-2009 10-25-2009
~u_
I Permanent 1 ~15-2009 10-25-2009
con$tructi()hPha~e ." H ," .'
I ~~:E~:~:~~ = ;11~~e~i~~etJ!~~~~~~~9 __ __-=-L~~~~~~g~~o__=-
I Ceriificate of Occupanc(_L __ .__._~ 1 0-31 ~.~_01 0 __,..__
~
.'-.',/','..::"
< :~or ]
......'(
.--.;'
..-.i ::',;
........
..... :..... :>::
............ .i
""--': ;''-'-'':.'.''''-''
..,...-......-....-,'
>.........
..:'..:.-,:--:;.;::----
..;.:.>-- :':;",-
......:.;.0-....--':.:.---;.......
11-04-2008
10-1-2008
1 0-24-2008
11-5-2008
3-1-2009
12-18-2008
2-25-2009
1 ~9-2009
2-10-2009
3~15~2009
3-15-2009
4-10-2009
4-10-2009
4-20-2009
4~20-2009
6-1-2009
10-1-2009
8-1-2009
6-1-2009
8-1-2009
--
." ....:... .........:....... .... .....
'.
.... ,....::.
. .....," .....-
6-30-2009
10-31-20 to
10-31-2010
10-31-2010
-..--
-~
--
Please provide your best (realistic) date cslimates regarding the project schedule
25
.. I
Form B-1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
Uses of Funding
Attached to this application are several estimated proformas for the housing
project. The forms are the Proformas used for the application to the State of
Oregon for funding:
SOURCES PAGE
INCOME PAGE WITH OAHTC SHOWING THE LOWERED RENTAL INCOME
This application for CDBG funding is exclusively for infrastructure but it is
difficult to look at just those items without looking at the overall budget of the
housing project.
26
. I
Housing Proposals
:~~~:r4ffti.li~i~:O;J;.~.~,~f~@
Land
Improvements
Liens and other Taxes
Closing costs
Off-Site costs
Other
Total Cost
COSG Request
Other Source(s)
. :.... ~:. ".:.:..' '.' :,. ': -':'
~.:;::~.;/.\~~;?:\>~.:) )~::\::.:..:"
..:.c./.......(;<:.,:.'.::>.......
'.,. ...>......:....:...:..,::;:......,...::::.. '::'.
----
SUBTOTAL
;r~~~~,U?pm.~n.~{~~.~t:~f,.?;.": }\ I'.:,}"":':':::
Land Use Approvals
Building Permits/fees
(Include Engineering and
Community Development Fees)
:. ::.::.:::/;:;:..:....... P:
..:..,ii......'" ..::.....:::./. I:{/:';'p.., :......... ......;:/>.:'.'
":>:,,:,'::" ,..c:...:....:::..::
System Development Charges
(SDCs)
Relocation Costs
Environmental Report / Lead
Based Paint Clearance
Soils Report
Survey
Marketing
Insurance
Site Clearance and Grading
Pre-Development Conceptual
Planning
Other
'eJJ~IJ9Y~~:~lU~'-~~,". ...... ." '.::
Improvements to Clay Street
Two new Public Streets
Turn Lane at Clay/Ashland
Wetlands Mitigation
. . .... ,::,'<'
'::';'::'. ::' ;>:::::.;'/,: ',' ;;::':;..:. ':'::" '.' .
: r~~s:; \?'/;,,';>.:,'. .
,0:. '.': . .
Architectural
Engineering
Wetland Consultant
Lender fees
Construction Loan
Permanent Loan
-~--_._.........-.-.........------....- -...
Tax Credit Fees
~~~:~;:~t ~::-=-~='::=r
IOther. TO~;~03.749.97
--
"....:...,.:>..:::':.'.';.::::',.:....;:;<..;:.:....:.'.",:,:'.'x .:......:... ..:,:...:....'....:..:'.':...::::..
...,.::.:..:';'......';..i:::./....;............<:,...,:: ,.:"'.".',::":'.' ::>i,,' > ,,:.> . ..,;, .... .... ......
$245,456.55 $170,000 $ 75,456,55
$417,795.94 $340,000 $ 77,795.94
$100,488.48 $100.488.48
$ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
.:::-;. 'C''.:;,'..;;:':::': . '..<, "':,', ' .... .'.:':"":':..:-;..:
......P;:i.Y-')/(:}i. <. .: ,':'.' .. ...... .....,':..' ....... ...... .......:.... . .:...... .,.:,:..,
, . ":i,:,.:;(:>'":.:,-::;',.''' ,'..:....>.::.;..:".'. ..,.. ................ ......-....-
":;".c/: ....... ..-.......... ...:' ..' '..>>'>:.:, .......... ....;>
--
-~:
.. [===~~~.-._.
I
[~==~~=~~~---=
1_,._____......_____
$510,000
$293~740.9~.==l
27
.. I
Form CSOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET
Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain
the 0 erations of the rogram s).
f~~wr1~1~I[~I'!fl,i ~'lll(~~~ti~~g! .;::~~W~1~;BnY
Federal Grants
State Grants
Local Grants
Non Governmental
Grants
Donations/Gifts
Applicant
Contribution
Program Income
Loans
Rental Income
$371,516
4-25-2009
Other (specify)
Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related
to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide
application dates, award dates and funding availability dates.
Ashland CDBG Grant Funds for Offsites $345,000 Awarded
Ashland CDBG Grant Funds for Offsites 2-2009 $164,000
State of Oregon - CFC End of February, 2009: Low Income Housing Tax Credits allocation $825,000,
Oregon Lender Tax Credits for the full amount of the Loan (approximately $2.700,000), Housing Trust
Funds in the amount of $100,000, Low Income Weatherization $100,000
Business Energy Tax Credits; Summer of 2010, $45,900
The Oregon Lender Tax Credits are vital to the project because they reduce the interest rate by 4%.
29
.. r
Form D
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of
interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we
request the following information be provided by applicants:
ORGANIZATION NAME: _Housing Authority of Jackson County
Organization is: 1. Corporation ( )
2. Non-Profit 501 C3 ( )
3. Partnership ( )
4. Sole Owner ( )
5. Association ( )
6. Other ( X) _Housing Authority under ORS 456
DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS
If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet.
1. State the names of each "employeell of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the
above mentioned "organization" or project proposed.
Name, Job Title and City Department
2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a
potential "financial interest" in the organization or project.
Namerritle
3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking COBG funding
Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet)
See Attached
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
additional
If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding
any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative.
30
. r
ATTACHMENT A
AREA MAP
... r
LETTERS OF COMMITMENT FROM
LENDER AND INVESTOR
.. r
~~!!!!~@
Commercial Real Estate
111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 700
Portland, OR 97204
February 23, 2009
Scott Foster
Executive Director
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY
2551 Table Rock Road
Medford, OR 97501
Re: Snowberry Brook
GO-unit Affordable Housing Project
Ashland, Oregon
Dear Mr. Foster:
Thank you for providing U.S. Bank National Association (lithe Bank") with the
opportunity to provide this proposal to extend construction and permanent financing for
the Snowberry Brook project.
The terms and conditions outlined in this construction and permanent loan proposal are
intended for discussion purposes only and do not constitute a commitment to lend on
the part of the Bank. Any commitment to lend must be formally approved by the Bank.
BORROWER:
Sn()w~erry Brook LLC will be the principal borrower on the
loans. rh~ loans shall be non-recourse as to payment of
principal and interest, but recourse as to matters of fraud,
environmental and ADA concerns.
GUARANTOR:
The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY will
guarantee the project. The guarantor's guarantee will be
released after the project has reached a 1.15: 1 stabilized Debt
SerVice Cover for three consecutive months.
PURPOSE OF
LOAN:
Proceeds of the loans are to be used for the construction and
permanent financing for the Snowberry Brook Apartment
housing project - a low/moderate-income rental project
comprised of 60 new apartment units located in Ashland,
Oregon (the llPropertylJ). It is understood that 100010 of the
units will be available to residents at or below 50% of the Area
Median Income (AMI).
CONSTRUCTION The combined Construction Loan Amount (the "Construction
AND PERMANENT Loan") shall be the lesser of:
LOAN AMOUNT:
00
$8,000,000
85% of FIRREA appraised value
85% of total project cost
The combined Permanent Loan Amount
(the "Permanent Loan") shall be the
lesser of: $2,700,000
An amount that is supported by the
00
[RJ
I:Rl
[g]
Snowberry Brook llC
February 23. 2009
Page 2
(8]
property at an initial1.20X Debt Service
Coverage Ratio.
80% of FIRREA appraised value
LOAN AMOUNTS: Construction/Perm Loan:
$2,700,000
TERM OF LOAN:
EXTENSION:
The construction/perm loan is structured as an 18 month
construction loan. From time to time, the borrower requests
construction draws that are funded from the construction loan
account. The interest rate is fixed at closing and is the same
for each construction draw. Once fully advanced and all
conditions of conversion are met, it converts to a 15-year term
term loan repaid on a 30 year amortizing payment schedule
Bridge Note:
$5,300,000.
The Bridge Note i.s structured as an 18 month interest only
short term bridge note. It will be repaid from equity at
conversion.
Construction Loan Period: The construction loan maturity will
be the earlier of a) 18 months from loan closing, plus
applicable extension(s}; or, b) construction loan conversion.
Construction loan conversion (to the permanent loan) will
occur once the following conditions have been met:
1. Receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy and evidence all
bills are paid.
2. The property has achieved a 1.15 DSC ratio for three
consecutive months (assuming stabilized expenses).
3. All required Equity funds have been properly invested in
the project.
4. Lien free title endorsement is received.
Permanent Loan Period: The permanent loan period will
commence upon satisfaction of the conditions stated above,
but in no event later than Eighteen (18) months, plus
applicable extensions, from the Construction Loan closing,
and will mature in Twenty (20) years.
PROVIDED BORROWER IS NOT IN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT
OF ANY AMOUNTS DUE ON THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN, OR IN
DEFAULT OF ANY OTHER TERM OR PROVISION OF THE LOAN
DOCUMENTS, and borrower has the option of one, 6-month
extensions of the Loan. The extension option may be exercised,
if the loan is not in default and the project is completed and
achieved a 1.0 debt service cover, and upon receipt of Lender of
a fee in the amount of .25% of the loan amount not less than 30
days prior to loan maturity.
A separate fee for the extension of the conversion date of the
interest only payment on the construction loan to the principal
J:\PROlrnON"J.ort'!1 2\HoliSil1g AUlh ofJackson County..,snO\\"bcrry Brook Apartmen!s - Ashiand\Term Sheet 02-
2 :~..09 .cloe
-. r
Snowber(y Brook LLC
February 23. 2009
Page 3
and interest payment on the permanent loan may also be
required. This fee must be separately priced for each
extension. The price for extending this date is considered on a
case by case basis and is subject to changing market
conditions.
REPAYMENT
TERMS AND
TIMETABLE:
Construction Loan:
Monthly interest only payments on cumulative funds
advanced.
A constructionllease~up line item will be included in the
construction loan budget to fund interest payments during
the construction and lease~ up period.
Permanent Loan: At conversion to amortization, the Bank will
require monthly principal and interest payments with the
principal payments based on a thirty (30) year amortization
period and a balloon principal payment at the end of the
twentieth year.
INTEREST RATE: Construction IPermanent Loan:
Construction/Perm Loan: Unless previously agreed upon, the
fixed interest rate for both the construction and permanent
phase of the loans is locked at closing of the construction
loan and remain the same until maturity. The fixed interest
rate during the construction period shall not be less than
7.000/0 per annum and the fixed rate for the permanent phase
shall not be less than 3.00% using the Oregon Affordable
Housing Tax Credits and a 30Myear amortization schedule and
a 365/360-day interest accrual factor.
Bridge Note: The interest rate is 4.500/0 over the DAILY L1BOR
RESET Rate, fully floating. This L1BOR Rate is currently .500/0,
plus the 4.50% spread, which creates a 5.00% current rate.
This rate may be fixed by the use of an internal U.S. Bank
SWAP.
LOAN FEE:
Construction Loans: % of 1 % of the Construction Loan
amount ($60,OOO)
Permanent Loan: % of 1 % of the Permanent Loan amount
($20,250*)
".25% of the permanent loan fee is due at construction loan closing
EQUITY FUNDS:
The difference between the total project costs and the
Construction and Permanent Loan is expected to fund from
Equity Funds (the :'Equity Funds"). Sufficient Equity Funds
to complete the property must be committed to the project
before closing on the construction loan at terms and
conditions satisfactory to US Bank.
U.S. Bank will require a minimum of 150/0 tax credit equity at
the time of the closing of the construction loans and a total
I:\PRODT10N'J.orCll 2\Housi ng ..4\ uth of Jackson COllllly\Snowbcrry Brook Apartments - .Ashland\Term Sheet r)2.
23-09.doc
-. r
Snowberry Brook LLC
F(~brlJary 23, 2009
Page 4
PREPAYMENT
PENALTY:
COLLATERAL:
REPLACEMENT
RESERVES:
DEBT SERVICE
RESERVE:
INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS
PRIOR TO
CLOSING:
of 80% of the tax credit equity at the completion of
construction.
The specific source, conditions for funding, and timing of
when the Equity Funds will be spent relative to when loan
advances will occur must be reviewed and approved by the
Bank prior to construction loan closing.
Construction and Permanent Loan: Should the Loan be
partially or fully prepaid ahead of the scheduled amortization
amount on the Loan, Borrower shall pay the Bank a "yield
maintenance" prepayment premium, jf any, which will be
based upon the Note amount, date of prepayment, and
market rates prevailing at the time of such prepayment. No
partial prepayment will relieve the Borrower of the obligation
to pay future installments of principal or interest when due.
Collateral will consist primarily of the following items;
however, this checklist is not intended to be an all inclusive
list:
1RI First lien on all real property and improvements
existing or to be constructed on the Property;
[R] Assignment of tax credit commitment and Limited
Partner's Capital contributions;
00 Assignment of Leases, Rents and Other IncOlne;
lli] Financing Statement to be filed on all personal
property and project reserves;
[RJ Assignment .of Construction Contract(s);
[R] Assignment of Architect's Contract(s); and
All collateral will be subject to the review and approval by the
Bank.
Upon conversion to the permanent loan monthly payments
into a replacement reserve account will be required. Monthly
cash deposits of $25.00/unit ($300 per unit/year) shall be
deposited with U.S. Bank and will serve as additional
collateral for the loan.
Upon conversion to the permanent loan the Borrower shall
fund a Debt Service reserve equivalent to three months of
debt service, into an account at U.S. Bank. The funds shall be
held for the duration of the permanent loan and serve as
additional collateral for the loan.
Course of Construction and Fire and extended coverage as
well as liability insurance satisfactory to the Bank is required.
Coverage for the permanent loan must include a provision
for 12 months of rent loss.
Prior to closing, the following requirements must be met:
l&l Tax Credit Allocation: The Borrower shall have
I:\PRODTJON".Loren 2\Ho\lsing Auth oLJackson Coul1ty\Sn()\vbcrry Broo~; .\panll1ents - Ashland\Tcnn Sheet (12-
n-09.doc
"." r
Snowberry Brook LLC
February 23. 2009
Page 5
ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
PRIOR TO LOAN
CLOSING:
received an allocation of LlHTC's from the appropriate
government agency in the net amount of at least
$6,599,340.
fRj Limited Partner: Evidence of a) a tax credit investor's
commitment to be the 99.99% limited partner in the
Borrowing entity and commitment to invest the
$6,599,340.
Equity investment; b) the Bank and Borrower's
acceptance of the limited partner; c) the Bank's review
and approval of the partnership agreement.
fE] Other Sources: Borrower shall provide evidence of the
commitment from other sources to fund an additional
$2,095,000 to the project.
00 Deferred Developer Fees: Based on current estimated
costs, developer would be entitled to a $900,000 fee,
some portion of which may be deferred.
The Borrower will be paid the deferred development
fee under the terms of the agreement with the limited
partner/tax credit purchaser upon completion and
lease-up of the property.
I2{] Investor Qualifications: The Tax Credit Investor for
this project shall be satisfactory to the Bank in all
respects in its sole discretion.
Loan Closing is subject to receipt, analysis and acceptance
of the following items:
[8] Appraisal commissioned and acceptable to Bank;
[g] Phase I environmental site assessment acceptable to
Bank;
00 Commitment for Title Insurance;
00 AL T A survey certified to Bank, Borrower and title
company;
!Rl Evidence of property insurance naming Bank as
mortgagee:
[gJ Borrowing entity's organizational legal documents;
[g] Copies of plans and specifications;
IR1 Final detailed budget of all construction costs;
!Xl Final pro forma of the income and expenses for the
Property;
00 Building Permit;
[g] Copy of the guaranteed maximum price construction
contract;
[R] Copies of contracts with major subcontractors;
[gJ List of all subcontractors;
IR1 Evidence of availability of waterl sewer, gas, electric;
and
1liJ The above listing is not all inclusive and additional
information may be required by the Bank.
1:\PRODT10N\Loren 2".HolIsing Auth or Jackson Coullty\Snowbcrry Brook Apartments - Ashland\Tcl"lll Shed 01-
23-09.doc
'. r
Snowberry Brook LLC
Fe!)ruary 23. 2009
Page (5
COST REVIEW!
REGULAR
INSPECTIONS:
COVENANTS:
ONGOING
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS:
Bank will engage an outside construction inspector (the
"Inspector") for:
00 An up-front review of the plans, specs and budget to
determine adequacy of the construction loan budget.
Based on the Inspector's recommendation, the
construction loan budget may be adjusted.
00 Monthly inspections to review status of construction,
compare construction draws to construction
progress, review invoices, and make recommendation
for payment.
Any fees charged by the Inspector will be paid by the
Borrower and will be in addition to the above Loan Fee.
Borrower is to insure that the following requirements are
complied with:
00 Debt CoveraQe Ratio (the "OCR") of 1.05 to 1 will be
required and is to be monitored on an annual basis
based on the prior twelve (12) months of operations.
The OCR will be calculated by dividing the actual Net
Operating Income (NOI) from each property by the
Debt Service payment. NOI is determined by taking
the actual income from the Property and subtracting
the operating expenses and replacement reserves.
Debt Service is defined as the interest and principal
payments required under the Permanent Loan plus
required bank reserves. The DCR may not be below
the OCR requirement required by Limited Partner.
IRl Secondary Financina: The Borrower shall not incur
any additional debt beyond the Loan secured by the
Property without prior written Bank approval.
00 Maintenance of Property: At all times, the Borrower is
to maintain the Property in good working order.
Borrower will be required to supply the following information
to Bank.
[R] Annual audited financial statements on the Borrower.
I.Rl Annual financial statements on guarantors.
[R] Quarterly rent roll and operating statements on the
Property.
fKI Annual verification that property insurance coverage is in
place.
[RI Annual verification that all real estate taxes have been
paid.
lRI Annual tax returns on the Borrower and the general
partner.
[g) Annual evidence of compliance with L1HTCIIRC Section
42 regulations.
1:\PRODTION\Loren 2\Housing AUlh ofJacksoll COllllty'\Snowbcrry Brook Apartments - i\shland\Terli1 Sheet 02.
2j.09.dr)(
Snowberry 8rool< LLC
Fel)ruary 23. 2009
Page 7
CLOSING COSTS: All costs associated with closing the proposed transaction
will be paid by the Borrower, including, but not limited to, the
cost of the appraisal, Phase I environmental site assessment,
the up.front and monthly construction inspection fee
charged by Agent, survey, title insurance, any outside Bank
legal fees, recording fees, etc.
Conditions (Construction and Permanent Financing)
The loan is dependent upon the Applicant providing, and U.S. Bank's
approval/acceptance of, the following:
. At the Bank's request, an Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement
regarding the environmental condition of the property or a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) that meets the Bank's environmental policy. Applicant will
also be required to execute a Hazardous Waste Indemnity Agreement prior to funding
any loan. U.S. Bank reserves the right to require a more extensive environmental
audit. The Bank must order this work.
. Legal description
. An appraisal and market study ordered by the Bank in conformance with FIRREA.
. Copy of organizational documents for the Applicant and Guarantor(s).
. Current financial statements for the Applicant and Guarantor(s) signed and dated.
. Three years of tax returns including all schedules and KM1's for the Applicant and
Guarantor(s).
. All construction documents, including, but not limited to; plans, specifications, soils
reports, construction contracts, architect contracts, project budget including
construction breakdown and soft costs, and schedule of completion for the complete
development of the project.
. Information (resumes and contracts if available) on the development team (architect,
contractor, engineer, developer).
. Any signed leases or letters of intent (if applicable).
. Three year operating history (permanent loans only)
. Applicant's Access Law Questronnaire and Disclosure Statement (permanent loans
only)
. Purchase and Sale Agreement (if applicable).
. Preliminary title report prior to approval. Title insurance policy with acceptable
endorsements at closing.
. Insurance liability policy in the amount of $1,000,000 with U.S. Bank named as
additional insured. A prepaid policy or policies of fire insurance with extended
coverage, flood insurance (if required) and such other insurance as Bank requires, in
l:\PRODTION\Lorcn 2\lIousing Auth of Jackson C:ollJ1ty\Snowberry Brook Apartments - Ashland\Tenn Sheet 02.
2:,-09.doc
... r
Snowberry Brook LLC
February 2~~. 2009
Page 8
such amounts, in such form, and with such companies as are acceptable to Bank,
each with mortgagee clause in favor of Bank.
· Formal credit approval by U.S. Bank of the proposed financing.
· If credit approval is obtained, execution and delivery of a Promissory Note, Deed of
Trust, and such documents as U.S. Bank and its counsel may deem necessary or
appropriate.
· The above listing is not all-inclusive and the Bank may request additional information.
Applicant's Agreements
Upon execution and delivery of this document by applicant to Bank, it is agreed:
· Good Faith Deposit and Out of Pocket Costs
Applicant shall contemporaneously herewith deposit with U.S. Bank $ U . This deposit
shall become non-refundable upon issuance of a commitment by U.S. Bank on materially
the same terms specified in this application. If a commitment is not issued~ the deposit
shall be returned to Applicant without interest and less U.S. Bank's out of pocket
expenses. If a commitment is issued and accepted, the deposit shall be applied toward
any commitment or loan fees.
** To be determined when the appraisal is ordered.
Applicant agrees to pay all reasonable legal fees, recording fees, appraisal and review
costs, title insurance, surveys, environmental assessments, escrow charges, taxes,
inspection fees and other out of pocket costs incurred by the Bank in connection with
this application and any resulting loan.
. Assignments
This letter is not assignable by Applicant by operation of law or otherwise without the
Bank's prior written consent. Any brokerage commission or finders fee payable in
connection with the loan and the transactions contemplated thereby will be payable by
Applicant and not by the Bank. The Applicant agrees to indemnify Bank and hold the
Bank harmless from and against any claims of any broker or finder arising out of
transactions contemplated thereby. This obligation will survive the expiration or
termination of this letter and any commitment.
. Approval
Any lending relationship with Applicant is conditioned upon receipt of credit approval
from U.S. Bank and conclusion of negotiations of all terms and conditions relating
thereto. This letter merely reflects U.S. Bank's present intent subject to the conditions
contained herein and is not to be relied upon by any third party.
· Credit Information
Applicant authorizes U.S. Bank, its employees, agents, successors~ assigns and affiliates
to
a) make whatever investigation Bank deems appropriate concerning Applicant,
Applicant's request for credit, and in the collection and periodic review of the loan, and
b) to share the information obtained with prospective purchasers of assignments and
participations in the loan and as othelwise permitted by law. Without limiting the
foregoing! Bank may obtain credit reports and other information regarding Applicant's
deposit accounts, income and banking credit~ business and employment relationships
and may verify such information. If Applicant is married and lives in a community
J:\PRODTJON\Loren 2\Hollsing Auth of Jackson County\Snowberry Bmok Apartmenls - Ashland\Term Sheet 02..
2.~-09.d{JC
". r
Snowberry Brook LLC
February 23. 2009
Page 9
property state, this authorization is also made on behalf of Applicant's spouse, even jf he
or she is not a co-applicant.
· Representations
Applicant affirms that all financial information provided in conjunction with this request
for credit is true, accurate, and complete. Applicant has read and understands this loan
application and warrants to be true and correct all of the information contained herein
(including any supplemental pages attached to and made a part hereof) and all other
documents submitted to Bank herewith. Applicant expressly warrants to have the
authority to act on behalf of other principals, if any, connected with the subject property,
and is in all respects qualified to accept such financing if offered.
Disclosures
Upon execution of this document, it is acknowledged:
· Right to Receive a Copy of the Appraisal
If one to four family residential property will serve as collateral for this loan, you have a
right to a copy of the appraisal report used in connection with your application for credit.
*If you wish a copy, you must write to us at:
U.S. Bank Commercial Real Estate, 111 SW Sill Avenue, Suite 1200, Portland, Ore~on
97204. We must receive your request no later than 90 days after we notify you about the
action taken on your credit application or you withdraw your application. In your letter,
please provide the applicant's name, date of this application, and the loan amount. Your
right to receive a copy of the appraisal requires that you reimburse us for the expense we
incurred in obtaining and copying the report. We will advise you of the cost when we
receive your request.
· Equal Credit Opportunity Disclosures
The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against
credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status,
age (provided the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract); because all
or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program; or
because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit
Protection Act. The federal agency that administers compliance with this law concerning
this creditor is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Unit,
1301 McKinney Avenue, Suite 3710, Houston, TX 77010.
If the Applicant's application for credit is denied, Applicant has the right to a statement of
the specific reasons for denial. To obtain the statement, the Applicant must write to:
U.S. Bank Commercial Real Estate, 111 SW 5lh Avenue, Suite 1200, Portland, Oregon
97204 or call (503) 275 - 8601 within 60 days from the day that Applicant is notified of
U.S. Bank's decision. U.S. Bank will provide the Applicant with the written statement of
reasons within 30 days of receiving Applicant's request. Please retain a copy of this
application and disclosures for your records.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
UNDER OREGON LAW, MOST AGREEMENTS, PROMISES AND COMMITMENTS MADE
BY LENDERS AFTER OCTOBER 3, 1989 CONCERNING LOANS AND OTHER CREDIT
EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE NOT FOR PERSONAL, FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES
OR SECURED SOLELY BY THE BORROWER'S RESIDENCE MUST BE IN WRITING,
EXPRESS CONSIDERATION AND BE SIGNED BY THE LENDER TO BE ENFORCEABLE.
I :\PRODTION\Loren 2\Housing Auth of Jackson County\S\l()\vberry Brook Apartmenls - Ashland\Term Sh(~ct 02-
2~..C9,(i~1C
Snowberry Brook LLC
February 23. 2009
Page 10
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR OPENING A NEW ACCOUNT
To help the government fight the fu nding of terrorism and money laundering activities,
Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that
identifies each person who opens an account. When you open an account, we will ask
for your name, address and other information that will allow us to identify you. We may
also ask to see other documents that substantiate your identity.
If you find this proposal of loan terms acceptable, please sign the acknowledgment
below and return it by June 30,2009. Acceptance of these terms does not constitute a
commitment to loan. Upon receipt of this letter we will begin to process your loan
request. If the letter is not returned by June 30, 2009, the proposed terms and conditions
for the proposed loans will automatically expire. We look forward to your response and
the opportun jty to work with you on this quality project.
Please call with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Do~~
David A. Castricano
Senior Vice President
Community Lending
": " -J1
..--~..:k [" if tuJ(
~._/f)~_._"j 3-1"\ . \........ .
Loren ~. Clark
Assistant Vice President
Community Lending
AG REED AND ACCEPTED:
SNOWBERRY BROOK, LLC
By: Housing Authority of Jackson County,
Its Managj~ Mem~
By: ~~ ~_~
Scott Foster, Executive Director
Date: 6 k-/7- 3/7.. Co 1__________
/ I
I:\PRODTJON'Loren X-.Hollsmg AUlh of .lacks 011 COllllty\Sno\vben)' Brook Apartments - Ashland\Term Sheel 02-
23-0(Ldul"
"." r
OAHTC RENT REDUCTION CALCULATION
Project Name: Snowberry Brook
WITH OAHTC W/O DAHTe
LOAN AMOUNT: $2,700,000 $2,700,000
INTEREST RATE: 3.000% 7.000%
NUMBER OF YEARS TO AMORTIZE: 30 30
NUMBER OF YEARS TAX CREDITS TAKEN: 20 20
MONTHL Y PAYMENT AMOUNT: $11,383 $17,963
INTEREST RATE REDUCTION: 4.00%
TOTAL TAX CREDIT ALLOWED: $1,586,525
NUMBER OF UNITS: 52
RENT REDUCTION UNIT/MONTH: $128
ANNUAL RENT PASS THROUGH: $79.872
LOAN AMORTIZA liON MAXIMUM ANNUAL TAX CHEDIT
ENDING PRINCIPAL AVERAGE AVERAGE TAX
YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE YEAR REDUCTION INTEREST BALANCE CREDIT
1 $79,452 $57,148 $2,642,852 1 $57,148 $79,452 $2,648,392 $105,936
2 $77,714 $58,886 $2,583,966 2 $58,886 $77,714 $2,590,451 $103,618
3 $75,922 $60,677 $2,523,289 3 $60,677 $75,922 $2,530,749 $101,230
4 $74,077 $62.523 $2,460,766 4 $62,523 $74,077 $2,469.230 $98,769
5 $72,175 $64,424 $2,396,341 5 $64,424 $72,175 $2,405,841 $96,234
6 $70.216 $66,384 $2.329.957 6 $66,384 $70.216 $2,340.523 $93,621
7 $68,197 $68.403 $2,261,554 7 $68.403 $68,197 $2.273,218 $90,929
8 $66,116 $70,484 $2,191,070 8 $70,484 $66,116 $2,203,867 $88.155
9 $63,972 $72.628 $2,118,443 9 $72,628 $63,972 $2.132.406 $85.296
10 $61 ,763 $74,837 $2,043,606 10 $74,837 $61.763 $2.058.771 $82.351
11 $59,487 $77,113 $1,966,494 11 $"11,113 $59,487 $1,982.897 $79.316
12 $57,141 $79,458 $1,887.035 12 $79,458 $57,141 $1,904,715 $76,189
13 $54,725 $81,875 $1,805,160 13 $81,875 $54,725 $1,824,155 $72,966
14 $52,234 $84,365 $1,720,795 14 $84,365 $52,234 $1.741.145 $69,646
15 $49,668 $86.931 $1,633,863 15 $86,931 $49,668 $1 ,655,61 0 $66,224
16 $47,024 $89,576 $1,544.288 16 $89.576 $47,024 $1,567.473 $62.699
17 $44,300 $92,300 $1.451.988 17 $92,300 $44,300 $1,4-,6,655 $59,066
18 $41,492 $95,107 $1,356,880 18 $95,107 $41,492 S 1,383,076 $55.323
19 $38,599 $98,000 $1,258,880 19 $98,000 $38,599 $1,286.650 $51.466
20 $35.619 $'100,981 $1 ,157,899 20 $100,981 $35,619 $1,187.291 $47,492
OreQol1 Affordablo Housing Tax Credit Program Currently U.S. Bank Oregon is using tile Oregon Affordable Housing Tax
Program_ However, from time to time. changing market conditions may impact the ability to use these credits. We wish to
confirm our experience wiltl and ,>vfllingness to participate in the Oregon Affordable I-Iollsing Tax Credit Pr09ram offered by
Oregol1 HOLlsinQ & Community Services al the curren! lime. If Oregon Lender Tax Credits are allocated to tile Snowberry
Brook Housing Project. U.S. Bank anUC;J<Hes receiving tax credits allowin9 U.S. Bank to offer an interest rate four hundred
basis points below 'Nilal other/o/ise would I:(~ our quoted interest rate.
, .
t "'\/1 '\
I", ! r f
__ . / \J_.~._.......... - . .
Loren tvi. Ciar~k
I\ssistant Vice Presicienl
Community Lending
US Bank
, ~; /_1 .
~~...JJf'G
t.d~31 :;1(101
Dated ,
<>-w
December 12 I 2008
Key Community
I>c\'clopmenl Corllomliun
Mailcodc: OR-20-21.U4MS
12/ t SW Fif111 Avenue. Suire 4111l
Porl/anll. Oregon 1)7204
Snowberry Brook LLC
c/o Housing Authority of Jackson County
Mr. Jason Elzy
Project Developer
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford, Oregon 97501
Tel: (503) 790.756<1
Fax.: (5{}J) 7'>Q.7 5(,1)
Re: Snowberry Brook - Ashland, Oregon
Dear Jason:
Key Community Development Corporation ("Key CDC") has recently reviewed your plans to newly
construct low income housing in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon rthe Project"). The
proposed Snowberry Brook project is a new construction, sixty unit affordable housing complex
located on 4 acres. The target population will be family households earning between 30% and
50% of area median income. The total cost of the Project, including soft costs. will be about
$11,409,340. The purpose of this letter is to express an interest in providing equity financing
based upon the receipt of Low Income Housing Tax Credits ("lIHTC").
The terms set forth below are intended for the purpose of outlinlnq those terms pursuant
to which a definitive a!lreement mav be entered and do not at this :olnll" lime co"slllute a
bind'n" contract. This Is an evaluation of how the transaction ma be structured Cliven the
assumptions In the limited information orovided. An Investment bv Kev eoe is contlnaent
uoon, amonQ other thinqs, completion of due diliaence, the neaotiatlon and execution of
definitive aareements, and approval of Its Investment Committee.
Company Name:
Snowberry Brook LLC
Managing Member ("MMJ/):
Housing Authority of Jackson County
Developer:
Housing Authority of Jackson County
Guarantors:
Investment/Tax Credits:
Housing Authority of Jackson County
L1HTC Allocation:
Key COC's Interest:
GP Interest:
Key COC's Investment:
Price per Credit 1
$825.000 annually
99.99%
00.01 %
$6.599.340
$.80 per lIHTC
, Includes Koy CDC's eKpen~es and fees
HOt/sing AlItllOf ily of Jacksoll Coullty
Pay-In Schedule:
Percent:
15%
Amount:
$989.901
50%
$3,299,670
30%
$1.979.802
5%
$329.967
Allocations and Distributions:
2
December 11, 2008
Benchmarks:
First Installment to be paid the later of the following to pay Key COC's
legal fees and Development Advisory Fee and closing costs and may
pay a portion of the Developer Fee:
a) To be determined,
b) Admission to the Company.
c) Receipt of all building permits and approvals.
d} Construction Loan closing and
e} Receipt of permanent financing commitment(s).
Second Installment to be paid the later of the fOllowing to pay down the
Conslruction Loan:
a) October 1. 2010.
b) Receipt of all certificates of occupancy.
c) Architect's completion certification, and
d) Accountant's final cost certification of eligible basis.
Third Installment to be paid the later of the following to pay down the
Construction Loan and may pay a portion of the Developer Fee:
a) July 1. 2011.
b) 100% qualified occupancy.
b) Occurrence of Breakeven Operations. and
c) Permanent Loan closing.
Fourth Installment to be paid the later of the following to pay a portion of
the Developer Fee:
a) January 1. 2012
b) Receipt of IRS Forms 8609, along with Schedule A,
c) Receipt of first year tenant files and any unit transfers.
d) 1.15 Debt Service Coverage.
e} Receipl of lax return for year breakeven operations occurred, and
f) Receipt of copy of recorded Restrictive Covenant.
Tax credits, depreciation, and all operating profits and losses shall be distributed 99.99% to Key
coe and 0.01% to the Managing Member.
Tax Credit Adjusters:
1. Key COC will decrease its equity contribution by $.80 for each dollar of reduction of tax credits
that the project generates.
2. Key COC will decrease its equity contribution if tax credits are delivered later than the agreed-
upon projections by an amount equal 10 the difference between the totat amount of such
deferred Tax Credits and (he present value ot the deferred Tax Credits which will not be
claimable by Key COC until a later year or years (such as the eleventh or laler year of the
Compliance PeriOd).
3. The Company shall be required to pay Key COC the amount of any recapture or reduction of
tax. credits throughout the life of the Company.
..' .~..:.. 'r~r.t\.. r#'E~"ld ~~U'''.:.~t~':'' :,(':~
:- I .- ~. j ! - -,...~:. ot
Housing Authority of J~ckson COllnty
3
December 11, 2008
Cash Flow:
After appropriate priorities. cash flow from operations, if any, shall be distributed. unlil the end of
the Compliance Period. $10.000 to the Managing Member as an Incentive Management Fee,
then 99.99% to Key CDC and 0.01% to the Managing Member.
Sales/Refinancing:
After required priority distributions, proceeds shall be distributed 99.99% to Key CDC and .01% to
the Managing Member.
Right of First Refusal:
At the conclusion of the Compliance Period. subject to the Managing Member remaining as
Managing Member, Housing Authority of Jackson County or another qualified nonprofit
organization shall have the right to purchase the Project for a price equal to all outstanding debt
plus any tax liability of Key CDC resulting from the sale.
Repurchase ObllgatJon:
If the Company or Managing Member fails to satisfy certain material conditions agreed upon by
the parties, the Managing Member and Guarantors shall be required, at Key COC's election. to
repurchase Key COC's interest in (he Company at a price equal to Key COC's then current equity
in the Project plus interest
Reserves:
Operating: $169,000
Replacement Reserve:
Annually: $300/unit
From proceeds of the Fourth lnstar/ment
Initially, then escalating at 3% annually
Guarantee Obligations:
Completion:
Managing Member. Developer and Guarantors unlimited through
Breakeven Operations until date certain (to be determined).
Permanent Loan
Shortfall:
Managing Member, Developer. and Guarantors shall be obligated to
provide funds to the Company in the event that the actual proceeds of
the stated financing is less than the anticipated amount under the
same terms and conditions.
Operating:
Managing Member and Guarantors the greater of 6 months operating
expenses plus debt service or the amount of the Development Fee
until the later of 5 years or achievement of 24 consecutive months of
1.20 debt service coverage.
Tax Credit Adjuster:
Managing Member. Developer and Guarantors shall be obligated to
provide such funds as are necessary to fully pay when due any Tax
Credit Adjuster payment due Key COCo
Construction Loan:
Anticipated 10 be $2.700.000 with an interest rate of 2.4% from a lender
acceptable to Key COCo
,-r.- )~. ~~.,~:.. i".. :"~: .... :.:t~.;. !'-.~
: ,.' I ~ ....! : :'. " ~ ".
Hous;ng Authority of Jackson County
4
December 11, 2008
Sources of Permanent Funds (Must bo Non-Recourse Debt):
Permanent Loan:
$2.700.000
2.4%. 30 year term, 30 year
amortization.
HOME:
$600,000
5.15%. 30 year term, 30 year
amortization, cash flow
contingent; principal deferred.
Weatherization and Trust:
$200.000
0%. 30 year term, 30 year
amortization, cash flow
contingent; principal deferred.
CDBG Grant:
$345,000
Housing Authority of Jackson: $600,000
Loan or capital contribution
Development Fee Note:
$335,000
0%. 12 year term &
amortization.
Managing Member Equity:
$100
$6.599,340
Key CDC Equity:
Development Fee:
The Developer shall earn a Development Fee projected to be approximately $900,000 plus
unidentified project cost savings. if any. It is anticipated that $565.000 shall be paid from
proceeds of the Installments. It is estimated that approximately $335,000 of the total amount due
on the Development Fee shall be in the form of a Development Note which will be paid from
available cash flow within 12 years of the placed in service date. The Managing Member shall
agree to contribute to the Company an amount sufficient to pay any outstanding amount due
under the Development Note at the end of such 12-year period.
Limited Partner Fees (borne by the Company):
Legal Fees:
TO prepare Company documents, including tax opinion, payable
at closing.
Development Advisory Fee:
$10,000 for advisory services in connection with the
development and construction of the Project payable at closing.
Asset Management Fee:
Initially $3.000, escalated 3% annually, payable annually.
Accounts:
Maintenance of primary deposit accounts at l<eyBank National Association. The accounts shall be
opened by lhe undersigned's Relationship Assistant.
c}''')8(X<.::1f' ';":'~;.>I:I: "'~;il.:!IT" :.c..;
",,=,'\...i:;'~(f l~/~/lle
Housing Authority of Jackson COtlnJy
5
December 11. 2008
Envlronmontal Report and Appraisal:
The environmenlal reporls shall be updaled unless daled within 180 days of Company ClOSing,
shall comply with requirements as set forth in Ihe allached Exhibit, and shall be addressed to Key
COC or accompanied by a "reliance" leller. The appraIsal shall be reviewed and acCepted by Key
COC, shall be performed by an independent third party engaged by the conslruclion andlor
permanent lender. and shall comply with Ule requirements as set forth in Title XJ of FrRREA and
Key COC's appraisal policies. The appraisal shall be updated unless dated wilhin 180 days of
Company crosing, unless otherwise accepted by Key CDC.
This leller is nOI a conlract, nor a firm commitment. and neither party inlends for lhe preliminary
Understandings conlainad herein to represenl an agreement as to this Iransaction. The purpose
of lhis letler is 100utUne Ihe basic terms under which Key COC is willing 10 consider invesling
equity financing. Further review of this proposaf is subject 10, but not limited to, receipt of the
market study, environmental sludy, property appraisal, finalized plans and specifications. zoning
and other municipal approvals, operating pro farmas, a detailed source and use of funds. and
approval by Key CDC's Investment Committee. The terms as outlined herein are subject to
change upon further due diligence review.
This letter;s being provided to be included in the Company's tax credit application to be submitted
to Oregon Housing and Community Services for (he upcoming round of awards. II is anticipated
that the awards will be announCed by April 2009. Should the Company not be awarded the tax
credits. or if the Company is awarded a lesser amount of tax credits, or if this fetter is not
submitted with the Company's tax credit application. this letter will immediately become null and
void without further notice. Should the tax credits be awarded, this transaction must close within
90 days of receiving the tax credit award or this fetter will become null and void without further
notice. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS LETTER.
Thank you for submilting your equity proposal to Key CDC and good luck in securing a tax credil
allocation in the upcoming round. Please conlact me at 503~ 790.7566 with any questions or
concerns regarding this letter.
Sincerely.
V-a-v l 7 t L i. ,t i_..(.../
Jan McKee
Vice President
/J(J J
ACknowledged lhis ?~_ day of ....u~ ':..f-' 2009:
f{ A _, Managing Member
By:
Title: ()..,~,-~t' (j./ lJ~vt ("P-'~II f-
,
l' .:.... ~! ~
'l..~}"!~;...':" "~"--1.:"!'.'.':.!!i":"". 1.:"~
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM
COMMUNITY:
EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
~Lll~IL~~~ !L;~~
OC.J.1'fl:1LLQ'jQ
Lll.:lHlljUX Nt.IWUf'<K
f-JAGE 11:L/tI~
ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
flOARD OF nIR]tc..1'ORS
Rum: AJ.,J;XAN1JER
MATMARR
DI'l1lmSm
mml PARKER
AMY PA nON
o
.TULl DI ClDRO
SUl~..int<:ndcnt
JaL TURm~
&~Jn~A MnnRgor
SAMtJJCL BOGDANOVE
Direct9' of Student ~t'Vicell
Inspiring Learning for Life
MtCHELLE ZUNDEL
Dfret:to.rl)fEduel'tlon
February 9, 2009
Scott Foster, Executive Director
}Iousing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table.Rock Rd.
.Medford, OR 97501
Dear Mr. Foster>
The Ashland School Board is pleased to learn of the Housi.ng Authority's
proposed affordable housing project called Sn.owbeny Brook
Neatly 3,000 students combined attend Ashland .High School, Ashland Middle
School, the John. Muir I{...8, Willo\v Wind Comlnunity Learning Center, and our three
elementary schools, BeUview, Hel1nan) and Walker. The District employs approximately
300 full..time and part-time teachers, support staff, and administrators who provide high
quality instructional programs. We arc proud that Ashland Schoo1s continue to exceed
state and national averages on local, state, and national asseSStn_ents.
The School District;5 acutely aware of the shortage of housing for working
fatnilies who wish to reside in tbe Ashland comm.tmity . We bave been experiencing
declining enrollment for almost a decade in our public schools, and our most rece.nt
detnQgn~phig r~port ~it~s 'the laGK of affordahl~ housing in A.6hlan~ as a. maj1)r (:ontribntof
to tbat probJe.m.
The location of the Snowberry Brook proposed housing, with its close proximity
to Ashland Public Schools, is ideal for the development of sixty affordable housing units.
This project would be welcolned as a valuable addition to our community in that it would
potentially provide housing f~ staff who cannot at present afford to live in our town) and
it would create affordable housing for YOlUlg families with children ,,,ho are likely to
attend Ashland public schools.
Ashland School District 5 supports the I-Iousing Authority 111 its endeavors to
bring this project to ftllition. and encourages Oregon Hou~dng & Community Services to
provide the essential funding to make it a reality.
Sincerely,
Mat MaO'~ Chair
Heidi Parker, Vice Chair
Ruth Alexander
Amy PArtOn
Keith Massie
AD]\flNISTRATION BUILDING R85 SISKJYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 541-482.2311 FAX S41-482-2HIS
~""ft:Ir:,~:...
~..:;.~
~"'{<I
ACH
. ,
,.,~
.....;.;.':'"..~oT.:"'~
,..,:..';....f$~
Ashland Community Hospital
October 31) 2008
Scott Foster
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table Rock Rd.
Medford! OR 97501
Dear Mr. Foster
With lack of affordable housing in Ashland, Ashland Community Hospital Is pleased to offer support
to the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposed Snowberry Brook housing project intended
to serve the Ashland's workforce family population.
Our mission is to provide compassionate, high quality care that improves the overall health of our
patients, their families and the community by working in partnership with our physicians and other
regional healthcare providers. Our vision is to be an independent, collaborative community hospital
distinguished throughout the region for the highly skilled, patient-centered services we provide and
the relationships we cultivate with patients, families and providers.
For ACH to fulfill this mission we need a strong highly skilled workforce that can afford to live in the
community where they work. There is a definite lack of this affordable workforce housing in
Ashland. The Housing Authority of Jackson County has a strong tract record of developing and
preserving decent safe and affordable housing to families and individuals while coordinating efforts
toward self-sufficiency. The HA has the experience, understanding, and dedication that could
make the proposed project a reality in the near future and that would benefit our employees, the
quality of heath care in which we provide and will result in a stronger community.
Please consider carefully the Housing Authority's efforts and create this workforce housing that the
Ashland Community desperately needs.
If I may be of further assistance please contact my office.
Sin~er/ ~ A~
~ '1.V~
_ , IV .
'.----, ./
Mark Marchettir CEO----..--..-...-..-.......---
W';-:\'/ <l shl i1r:rihospi t,,! .org
280 Iv1apL:: Sire,:,:. Ashi'ind, Or(~~iO!1 97520
Td: 54 [.2Ui.,WGG . FilX: 5/11.488.7411
b
Oregon
Shakespeare
Festiva I
p.o. Box 158
15 South Pioneer Street
Ashland, OR 97520
October 3 I, 2008
Betty McRoberts
Development Director
Housing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table Rock Rd.
Medford, OR 97501
5414822111
5414820446 fax
5414824331 box office
www.osfashland,org
Dear Ms. McRoberts,
Inspired by Shakespeare's work and the cultural richness of the United States, the
mission of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is to reveal our collective humanity through
illuminating interpretations of new and classic plays, deepened by the kaleidoscope of
rotating repertory.
Founded in 1935, the Tony Award-winning Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) is atnong
the oldest and largest professional non-profit theatres in the nation. We are a critical
element in the health of the Ashland community, presenting more than 780 performances
annually with attendance of approximately 400,000. Our mission could not be rnet if it
were not for the employees of our organization. We employee 325 full time and 125 part
time staff with a volunteer base of about 500 people.
OSF is deeply aware of the shortage of affordable housing available to the workforce
population within the region. Although we work very hard to provide living wage jobs,
the development of 60 affordable rental units dedicated to households with an income at
or below 60% of the arca's median income would definitely help fill the gap of highly
needed housing, creating opportunities for many of our company members.
OSF offers its support to the Housing Authority of Jackson County for their Snowbcrry
Brook housing community tbat will serve Ashland's workforce population. It is this type
of housing that will create a stronger community in Ashland; in turn this will help our
cOlnpany members, our business, and the econOlnic viability of the region.
If I Inay be of further assistance, please contact nle at 482-21 I 1 ext. 222.
Yours sincerely,
Oregon Shakespeare Festival
I~'~~
PauJ Nicholson
Executive Director
.
.' ;~;;;~
SOUTHERN
OREGON
UNIVERSITY
Office of the President
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, Oregon 97520-5045
Tel 541-552-6111
Fax 541-552-6337
Decelnber 23, 2008
City of Ashland
c/o Mr. Brandon Goldnlan
Senior Planner
COlllffiunity Development/Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
RE: Affordable Housing in Ashland
Dear Mr. Goldlnan:
Southern Oregon University is very aware of the shortage of affordable
housing available to the workforce population within this region. More and
more, \ve find that our top finalists for faculty and administrative positions
who would be moving to the area 111Ust consider properties outside of
Ashland because of the high cost of housing.
The Ashland comn1lll1ity as a whole would benefit by the construction of
lnore affordable housing. As one of the largest elnployers in the valley, we
see that the need for affordable housing is essential for our elnployees. It will
improve the quality of life and give the local econonlY a needed boost in
these tough tin1es.
Sincerely,
Mary Cullinan
President
cc: Steve Kraft, Jackson County Housing
,-p
.1i!J};.
;P.
~zc/~#~~/
Betty McRoberts
Development Director
Housing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford, OR 97501
Dear Ms. McRoberts,
This letter is in support of the Housing Authority of Jackson County efforts in providing
affordable housing in and around the City of Ashland.
As General Manager of the Ashland Springs Hotel; I manage 85 employees that make a
living wage but still struggle to afford living in Ashland. Some of my employees travel
as far away as White City and with the rising cost of transportation and the lack of
affordable housing the hotel may lose a few of them.
With lack of affordable housing in Ashland it is with great support to a feasible proposal;
like one from the I-lousing Authority, should be considered with seriously, because it
would truly be a missed opportunity to pass this up especially during these hard times.
From my understanding the HAJC has the experience, understanding, and dedication to
the issue of providing affordable housing. It is this experience, understanding, and
dedication that could make the proposed workforce housing a reality in the near future
and that would benefit my elnployees, my business, and our community.
The Housing Authority is a long standing cOillulunity partner in the provision of
affordable housing and the City of Ashland will benefit greatly by supporting their effort
in Out. ci ty .
~ereIY'~/
(~h.'l ~:/~"\ 'L-~4-l ~_----_..
'--- /
DOll Anway 1
General Manager
f'1i rIll ," 'i'f i - ./ ;),'; - I ;' (: 0 r:...,~.~ i m II t' :;./ I ." K.'). ! 7 C I !to H ll' . {; s Ii I (~ " d :\ j} ril1.~ 5 it (J C " i _ .: () m
:? ! ~ E (/ .'; ,\.r <I i;, S i i ,. ,. I. :\:< [\ : ,: ;1 dO,. ,: ;.; () '.. r;;'.,~, ,:.,
~
~
Comm'unj~y
HEAL THCENTER
November 2: 2008
Scott Foster
Executive Director
I-lousing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table Rock Road
Ivtedford: OR 9750]
Dear Mr. Foster,
Community Health Center is pleased to write in support of the Housing Authority of Jackson
County's efforts to develop sixty units of Workforce Housing in the City of Ashland. Vole
commend the Housing Authority and the City of Ashland on the partnership they have forged
through which the property to build the housing complex \vill be purchased. Completion of this
project will enable the City of Ashland to take a major step forward in implementing its strategic
objective to provide housing to all income ranges, especially working families earning less than
60% of the Area J\1edian Income.
Community Health Center has provider primary and preventive health care services ill Ashland
since 1972. Over the course of ollr 36 year history~ we have served in excess of 50,000 Imv
income residence of Ashland who are in daily need of affordable housing. As \ve have ,,,atched
the fabric of the community change and access to affordable housing diminish, we have become
increasingly concerned with the negative health effects experienced by the low income families
who call ollr Ashland clinic site their medical home. At times, when our clients must decide to
pay their rent or purchase needed medications or nutritious food, the lack of affordable hOllsing
options can be life threatening. Some will say, let them move to a less expensive community, to
which I reply. if they move: where will we find the 'varkel'S to nm Ollr businesses.
The issues associated with the lack of an adequate supply of affordable housing is well
documented and most complex. Answers to the myriad complexities can only be found when new
t:nits of 3ffordable housing arc made available in all c.ommunities. The Housing Authority c.f
Jackson County is a well known community provider of affordable housing \vith whom we
encourage the City of Ashland to partner in bringing this project to fruition.
In thanking the I-lousing Authority for their vision and the City of Ashland for their comage and
support in moving this project forward: I l'emain~
Vcry truly yours,
Q if ~
I' V / f . I l/"
J-c /'(/.J:!"'Vl; __t I
l~eg( :r~i\\'le): ." RN ,>>/pI.!
Lxetuflvc Dll'ccto'(
98 Central Avenue
Ashland. 0,9 97520
Appointments. 482-9741
Fax: 488-61~1
.
19 jv1yr'tle Str'eet
f',;1edfDr'd. OR 97504
.L\ppolj,trne/lts: 773-3863
Fi::X 776-2892
wwv"; CD('r';IT1ullltyhealthcenter.or-'f}
_~1 'l/l;i(('(("I.ll!!.'/l,[jcllc!I
B3El~5 [)l\':sion Fklad
.
V\/hlt8 City. on. 97503
r.\pp():ntTm~nt~-, 826..5853
r=,.:x f3:.::C3-:384:3
Pathway ~ -
Enterprises, Inc.
November 3, 2008
Scott Foster, ED
Housing Authority of Jackson County
Medford, Oregon 97501
Dear Mr . Foster,
This letter is in support of the HAJC's efforts in providing affordable housing in the City
of Ashland.
Pathway Enterprises, Inc., a not-for-profit that supports adults with developmental
disabilities, realizes the struggles of its employees and clientele who strive to live in the
Ashland conlmunity. We welcome the Housing Authority's efforts to provide 60 units of
Workforce Housing in the City of Ashland. This project becomes luore cl11cial as the
comnlute to Ashland from other communities becomes less viable due to increased
transportation costs.
The City of Ashland will benefit greatly by this project.
~. ~r ly,
'" i'I>^-----
ec y ~EO and President
Pathway Enterprises, Inc.
655 Washington Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Community Integration · Supported Employment · Supported Living · Community Living
Qualified Rehabilitation Facility
Administrative Office
722 Jefferson Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.488.1536 541.488.5948 (fax)
COST ESTIMATES FROM ADROIT
CONSTRUCTION FOR THE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SNOWBERRY
BROOK
Adroit
Developmont COkJ Inc.
Snowberry Brook
Construction Cost Summary
General Conditions
On-Site Work
Landscaping
Concrete
Masonry
Struc1ual Steel
Carpentry
Thermal & Moisture Protection
Doors & Windows
Finishes
Specialties
Equipment
Furnishings
Mechanical
Electrical
Subtotal OnSite Work
Bond
Overhead
Profit
Liablity Insurance
Contigency
T olaf On..Site Contract
Off-Site Con1ract 1. - Clay Street Improvements
Off-Site Contract 2 - New Perimeter Streets
Total Construction Costs
* Includes Off~site General Conejitions, Liaiblity Insurance, and Contractor Overhead & Fee.
Adroit Dev610rmuull (:0., IlIc.
P.O. Box 9-'16 . /\$illand, Oregon 97520 . 5<"1 i -.f82-693!; . Fax: 5,:; l-L82-4218
OREGON NO. 160566
~. .#- ~"'., h_....._. ""#0#_., ....._.....,..... . ___ __ _ _ ,
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
446,875
1,078.332
350,000
503A50
25,000
122,000
1,383,506
250,810
316,456
692,000
42,004
12,000
13,000
400,000
350,000
5,985,433
47,738
209,940
209,940
174,950
370,000
6,9.98,001
245,457 *
417,796 'I.'
7,661,253
-- --. _n._..._.,._~_~.......,... ~m,".__...~..._.._...._.._ .-.._...-.._.....,~___.__....."..__.._~.. _. ,.. h_' ...... ...._...__n._..... _... _......__... .......__...~. ... _
Ulay Sk~
SNOWBERRY BROOK.. CLAY ST. (ASHLAND)
Rough Sitework Budget
SF
Thickness
QTY
Unit
Unit Price
1/28/2009
Total
'I ~$f~;~t~if;i~~WJ&~1~*~l~~:~~f;!ff~t~~}rf.~f~~~~W~,W~~~~~~f?~fr~11~1~~@I~~~fff;~~?J;~~~~J~Wl~i~~~f~&i1%~~~~t%f~t#~n~:t1~f~~1i.~~;
1 Mobilization / fuel escalations I supervision / misc. 1 LS $ 201000.00 $ 20,000.00
2 Traffic Control I Flagging 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
3 Clearing / Demo 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
4 Earthwork 750 .CY $ 20.00 $ 15,000.00
5 Overexcavation Beneath Parking Roadway of Unsuitable areas _;y
6 Aggregate Subbase Replacement of Overexcavation
7 Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric
8 Aggregate Subbase (Parking lotsjAC Areas)
9 Aggregate Base (Parking Lot/AC Areas)
10 Asphalt Concrete
11 Concrete Sidewalks (ine! excavation/prep/rock./pour)
12 Handicap Ramps
13 Concrete Curb & Gutter
14 Erosion Control
15 Surveying
16 Pavement Markings I Handicap Signs / Parking Bumpers
17 Fire Hydrant Installation (tap & tiein to existing line)
18 Water Service Installations
19 Sewer lateral (connnect to existing) 011 Clay Street
20 Street Lights
12"
6"
10,000
10,000
10,000
6,000
SY $ 1.25 .$
700 TN $ 15.00 $
750 TN $ 24.00 $
225 TN $ 85.00 $
6,000 SF $ 5.00 $
2 EA $ 450.00 $
1,000 LF $ 15.00 $
1 lS $ 2,500.00 $
1 LS $ 3,500.00 $
1 LS $ 5,000.00 $
1 EA $ 5,000.000 $
2 EA $ 1,500.00 $
2 EA $ 2,500.00 $
3 EA $ 5,000.00 $
SUBTOTAL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $
Contingency> > > > > > > > > > 100/0 $
GCs 80/0 $
Bond 10/0 $
Insurance 2.5010 $
Management Overhead & Fee 60/0 $
TOTAL BUDGET FIGURE >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> $
1,388.7S
10,500.00
18,000.00
19,125.00
30,000.00
900.00
15,000.00
2,500.00
3,500.00
S,OOO.OO
5,000.00
3,000.00
5,000.00
IS,OOO.OO
188,281.25
18,828.13
16,568.75
2,236.78
5,647.87
13,893.77
245,456.55
!;~~~;~~~::~This is an allowance quantity for estimating purposes only.
It is assumed that this work will not take place concurrently with construction of the residentialul1its and will be a separate project with prevailing
wage rates.
Items not accounted for above: permits or fees; landscaping, irrigation or topsoil; temporary or permanent
fencing; temporary 01' permanent hydroseeding; sand or vapor barriers; retaining walls, emu walls;
4"
4"
~:~_l%';~~'~;}r!~'\\'!~~!'Jti!~~~:m~~~
1 Mobilization I fuel escalations / supervision / misc. 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
2 Traffic Control & Flagging 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
3 Clearing / Demo 1 lS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
4 Earthwork 2,750 CY $ 15.00 $ 41,250.00
5 Overexcavatlon Beneath Parking lots of Unsuitable areas .. . . '.
6 Aggregate Subbase Replacement of Overexcavation
7 Non~Woven Geotextile Fabric
8 Aggregate Subbase (Parking Lots/AC Areas)
9 Aggregate Base (Park.ing Lot/AC Areas)
10 Asphalt Concrete
11 Concrete Driveway Aprons/Valley Gutters (ine! prep/rock/pour)
12 Concrete Sidewalks (incl excavation/prep/rock!pour)
13 Concrete Curb & Gutter
14 Erosion Control
15 Surveying
16 Pavement Markings / Handicap Signs / Parking Bumpers
17 8" HOPE Storm Drain Pipe
18 12" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe
19 Storm Drain Manhole
20 Storm Drain Catch Basins
21 Storm Drain Curb Inlets
22 Storm Drain Cleanouts
23 8" Ductile Iron Waterline & Fireline
24 Fire Hydrant Installation
25 Waterline Hot Taps to Existing
26 Street Lights
Jr1kr;or S~'U-~
SNOWBERRY BROOK
Rough Sitework Budget
SF
Thickness
QTY
Unit
Unit Price
1{28{2009
Total
2,250
1
1
1
100
480
1
2
3
3
1,200
2
2
4
{{:ik.)e~~:6:6bih~SY .... $
1,700 TN $
900 TN $
700 TN $
2,100 SF $
SF $
IF $
LS $
LS $
lS $
IF $
LF $
EA $
EA $
EA $
EA $
IF $
EA $
EA $
EA $
s,ooer-oct
25,500.00
21,600.00
59,500.00
14,700.00
33,750.00
1,500.00
5,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
15,840.00
2,500.00
1,100.00
3,000.00
375.00
36,000.00
7,000.00
2,000.00
20,000.00
346,115.00
34,611.50
3,807.27
9,613.34
23,648.83
417,795.94
f!~.t{[t~l\~ThiS is an allowance quantity for estimating purposes only.
It is assumed that this work will take place concurrently with construction of the residential units, but will be a separate prOject with prevailing
wage rates. If the projects occur concurrently, GCs will be a minimum.
Items not accounted for above: permits or fees; landscaping, irrigation or topsoil; temporary or permanent
fencing; temporary or permanent hydroseeding; sand or vapor barriers; retaining walls, cmu walls;
36,000
36,000
36,000
2,100
8"
4"
3"
6"
4"
1.25 .'$
15.00 $
24.00 $
85.00 $
7.00 $
5.00 $
15.00 $
1,500.00 $
5,000.00 $
3,000.00 $
25.00 $
33.00 $
2,500.00 $
550.00 $
1,000.00 $
125.00 $
30.00 $
3,500.00 $
1,000.00 $
5,000.000 $
SUBTOTAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $
Contingency > > > > > > > > > > 100/0 $
Bond 1 % $
Insurance 2.5% $
Overhead & Fee 6% $
TOTAL BUDGET FIGURE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>; $
R oll- T/A.,f( /J
La,JjL
ClAY
t- 4 tJ t!J.JJiD
Ar
SNOWBERRY BROOK
Rough Sitework Budget
SF
2/24/2009
BNSRiEtRQ~OS
1 MObilization / fuel escalations I supervision / misc.
2 Traffic Control (temp construction signs, etc.)
3 Flagging (earUlwork - 2, rock - 1, pour curbs -1, pour sidewalks -1, paving-i, strtpe 1/2)
4 Clearing I Demo
5 Earthwork (including wall excavation)
6 Over-excavation Beneath Parking Lots of Unsuitable areas
7 Aggregate Subbase Replacement of Overexcavatlon
8 Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric
9 Aggregate Subbase (Parking lotslAC Areas)
10 Aggregate Base (Parking LotjAC Areas)
11 Asphalt Concrete
12 Concrete Driveway ApronsNalley Gutters (incl prep/rock/pour)
13 Concrete Sidewalks (ine! excavatianjprep]rockfpour)
14 Concrete CUrb & Gutter
15 Erosion Control
16 Surveying
17 Pavement Markings / Handicap Signs I Parking Bumpers
18 8" HOPE Storm Drain Pipe
19 12" HOPE Storm Drain Pipe
20 Storm Drain Manhole
21 Stann Drain Catch Basins
22 Storm Drain Curb Inlets
23 Storm Drain Cleanouts
24 8" Ductile Iron Waterline & Fireline
25 Are Hydrant Installation
26 Waterline Hot Taps to Existing
TIlickness QiY Unit Unit Price Total
-~ "
1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00
1 LS $. 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
125 HR $ 35.00 $ 4,375.00
1 ts $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
_-!'E~.Q_~P' -,-J;.~~.:.q~_ $_.._2.~~qQ.oq_
C.'::. . .:::':'..~,!'.' '.... ~~.~::' ;.t;':~<..",::j~~~~3:; .'.~:::! :'; ;~":.!:;.::;~:):~<'
--525---5Y--- $--~--i:25 $-~6.i!r
TN $ 18.00 $
300 TN $ 30.00 $
125 TN $ 110.00 $
SF $ 7.00 $
SF $ 5.00 $
IF $ 15.00 $
1 LS $ 1,000.00 $
1 LS $ 2,500.00 $
1 LS $ 1,000.00 $
IF $ 25.00 $
LF $ 33.00 $
EA $ 2,500.00 $
EA $ 550.00 $
EA $ 1,000.00 $
EA $ 125.00 $
LF $ 30.00 $
EA $ 3,500.00 $
EA $ 1,000.00 $
'1,,: :. .,~r' . ...:. -.. ,'- .~. ...~I ':.~ :(J~''-'': '~..: c'~:,(, '? lJ-'..~~:"'.h-::t'f.""-_ ,~: .i~":'
4,700
4,700
10"
4"
o
4"
SUBTOTAL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $
Contingency >>>>>>>>>> 10% $
GC's $
Bond $
Insurance $
Overhead & Fee $
TOTAL BUDGET FIGURE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $
:.,'} ';..~:,t.,,~.. :.. ..:~..i'~:..: .\ ,\~ ...f....:I~~ , ....:. f~"; \'::~ ., ':
9,000.00
13,750.00
1,000.00
2,500.00
1,000.00
77,081.25
7,708.13
61783.15
915.73
2,312.21
51688.03
100,488.48
E~~:_~l11iS Is an allowance quantity for estimating purposes only.
Items not accounted for above: pennlts or fees; landscaping, irrigation or topsoil; electrical lights or bases; temporary or pennanent
fencing; temporalY or permanent hydroseedingi sand or vapor barriers; retaining walls, emu walls, site concrete
Wetland Work
Fill/Removal Permit: $7,500 + 1,200 in pennit fees = $8,700
Enhancement and Compensatory Mitigation Planting, dispersion trenc es, etc: $40,000
Clay Street Bio*Swales (includes planting, soils, and sprinkler systenl $ 000
On-Site bioswlaes (includes planting, soils, and springkler system $20,000 '
Wetland As-built and 4 years of post developlnent montoring nad reporting $10,000
Soils Report:
Backhoe $750
Laboratory $1 Al 0
Field Work, Surveying and Report $3,800
Total: 5,960
Environmental Assessn1ent:
Non ASTM: $1,800
ASTM Fonnat $2,500
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON
COUNTY
~ HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY
· I j , ,.. 2251 TABLE ROCK ROAD MEDFORD OR 97501
r ~ PHITDD (541) 779.5785 FAX (541) 857-1118/ FAX 779-4656
""lIoO:: __
Name and Contact Info Title and Business Info Date Expiration
Appointed
Buntin, Terry President, Buntin Construction 07 -29-99 2009
572 Parsons Dr., Ste. 100
Medford, OR 97504 HAJC Commissioner
Office: 776-0032
te rrv@buntinconstruction.com
Jarvis, Darrel R.
823 Alder Creek Drive Attorney at Law 02-23-00 2010
Medford, OR 97504 HAJC Commissioner
Bus: 541 772 1977
d iarvis@medfordlaw. net
Agreste, Norice Resident Board Member
2249 Table Rock Road #16 HAJC Commissioner 05-23-07 2013
Medford. OR 97501
Middendorff, Joan
1252 Valley View Rd
Medford, OR 97504 Retired from Real Estate 07 -03-02 2012
Home: 779-5699 HAJC Commissioner
Cell: 890-7734 (use home
number)
icdorff@mindsprinQ.com
Statler, John
1120 Niantic Street Medford City Council Member
Medford, OR 97501 HAJC Chairman 05-11-05 2010
Home: 541 770 5524
John@SvstemSolver.com
Williams, Ken
241 S. Obenchain Road
Eagle Point, 97524 HAJC Commissioner
Home: 826-2649 06-18-03 2013
Cell: 261-2418
kQweQ.@.embarQmail.com
Hartzell, Cate J.
881 East Main Street
Dept. Human Services
Ashland, OR 97520 Specialist 09-03-2008 2012
Home: 541 482-4111 HAJC Vice-Chairperson
Bus: 541 482 2041 Ext 234 HAJC Vice.Chairwoman
(Bus. # Emergency only)
cate@mind. net
F:\FAB4\8oard of Commissioners-all board related files\80ARD CONTACT INFORMATION UPDATED JAN 2008\80ARD CONTACT INFO-
Updatecl Dee 2008 with Kens changes.doc
SOURCES OF FUNDING
. ,u...._,__~____.._...,____._.~_
. .
; .
nim!~~,~w*~;~t9j~.9f.V~~~i.99.ftlm~I)~j,:;*
. .pr()j~~t.t-J~rl!.e.~"j Snowbe~ryJ3.r<.>C?~..._....
. -. ..~ - --
-- ru
.... ... .L'...._n_"'h_.l?~te:
01130/09
RESIDENTIAL
i HOMEj ;
! Match ] :
,.f\!.~~.i.~~L~().~~~e .!J~.~~~!tL.9.<.>.'!l.~.i~~~. .1.~()~~.!!I.<.>.~~.~.:... ..T~'.1.!~~~~_...+ ..... .... .,......,. ,. _...
2B~~'~~~N.!~..~EQmfY" '.. -......,..r:~.::.~~~~::....:+.-... . ......:h:.~._. ~i., ::.'.:'.:.:"~''''.'~'.~::.:.~.i..::.~.~~:..:::~:~:~~'.::."'.'1:" .......................
L1HTC Equity ''''''''''....m..... .. ;,..............T...m .... ...n....n_'~r:.'.~..~':'.~;~~~.~~.~9.r..-' ~~y-,:q~
82.M.g.:.......... ...... .........:...:.::...-..;.....--:::.:...1.-................ I.. ....... ...n....,,,m,, ................... ,
.-r{~[~~~r1.~. i .. .......mm..i. ....... .....;.. ....~.9.,q~Q.Q9..L.... .~.<1.Y:Q~
Hous"jn'Q"pius"Oe'velopmenfAmou'i1f'! . .,.:.'::~:::":.:.:.n... . ..] ..,.............~::.~:~~.~:.;::..... ..........___..__.._1..,...... ..... ...............
:~r~ ~~~~~.r.ii.@~~.~~~gOr~r!1. ...:..... ...... ,.'! ..,~... --...,-1-...-.... ........_.L.____m.. .....nn....._!.......... _ ..,...~,QQ!9.9.Q.L...... .:..:f0~.y:.~~
-JOial--6I1C~i3;a~iS=~=~~~E=_=j===~~~-~-j==:==-=:o__t=6JQQ.34Qj=
9H~~'..t;.qA:~I::=::m . .........--......1---' .........] i ...... ..:.:.:-J~.~..==~'~.:~m.....n' '.
~~i<;:;t Bond: --~~~~~-I=-~[~:~~i~~~===--=-~~=--=-:=-=~-r---:==
,---,--u_"'--'tot~1f C)'HCS'i.oans1' '.'......-..'1"'......... ..... ,._..O.'.-....!"... .... ..................,........,..............o.......'...!,m'm_h.. Oi,.,:"
.. __u__n._____'...j . ..............,...._... ...____n'.. ..... ..... .......... ,
'I i
'~j'b.N~.6HCS..G.RANTS .....~...'..::.:::..~.::..~:~...~~~.~::~.: "':'.~T-- . . ......-- 1 . .......................__...: ... __.___nm__......
Ashia'ncf'cDBG Loan .... ..i....,....:.:~~..$A(jol.:...'--..,----... i ..}~.~.~.a.:r~i~Q~.
Ashiand COSG Fu'j,ds' '2009 .',. .....l....................] ...:..' ::::[:::.:..n--T~~:ooo i
[ i
, ... . .'foiarN6N-68~~:~~.~isl,::::::.:.. .. .j. ':.~.4$.906T"'--'" . O'l". ..,__..._~.?~,ggQ.:
........ n__ _ ... _n _~... "...l~..-~._n._ _ .'. ,._,._".,..',....y.'"~...~____.._..
.~i6t-i~6HCS.L6AN~f.
... . ........_...-. .. ---- _.....-...... . -----..-.-------.---"....
,
. ..1 u__._._..__.._..__,..
Pe'r'm'anent Loan
. ........,... ,.....,..?.f99;9.bgJ:~~p.t~rn~~.r-9~
ApP[fCANT'toNTRTeUTIC)'NS
Total~.ibt:i~6HcsToans i
. ........ ...... ...... ... .... ......... ..................- 1
'n.. "0 . .,:..::..:...:...:::~.~~..I:.:..-:.:.~.~7q.Q;9.()~...!
... hun___nn__.._._.
,. ,---,..-...--------.1-_..____.____ --- j,..-
,g~~h.-:n~pgn~or. L.o.a.,rl.......... .,..n....!.......'..','................:..'...'.'......;I~........ ........JA~~;.o.<[(jT. . . .......,......_.. ... January-09
lJeJ~rr~d()eV~loP",~ntfee~:! ..:.. m_ i- ~m .. .. "m .:__=]__:_30().OOO i m:. ~aY:Q~
j'oialAppiiCa "ic""i;ib~tio:,,r____ [. 1. .036.()()QL_ _n." . '~L:_~~o,6QOI.
~J~~~: . . .. .m.. .. "L-===1- ...__=1=::<15.9001 mAU9:()~
QashflQY'Qurln9 Heha.b .===;m-:__t~.. "'mm .1____ .....:..
i . .~ ""-""1---
t otai' 6t~.~.~..F.'~,~~~. L.:__._._____., .
o
. ....... .:.:'.'ql nn ....--....~,$!.~9.~r..
sUBtqf.Ah$:r..~:::.:':"
.:.~I;3~Tl6.t)()'::. ..
.. '.'~~'Tn]To;o~~.,?4~.'i . ,
TOTAL FUND SOURCES
, ..... :$E.3"90';240
.',$~rp.lu~~.l?r.'g~p;...ii, " .)Note: Total Fund Sources must match
: "T ?t,~I, P~'?l~~t.C:l)~~" frol'r\ \J~e~. of Funding
6the.r..f~ics.-non~e-qu'ity source's-: [ :,.....-
. ... ... .... "OregonAffordable'Housing'Ta',d5redii (OAHTC)
..... 'See'd'MoneyAdvanceTo'ao" ..
Pr.~~.~Y~!9.'~6j~~IICj~~':."'" ..
$2)60.000 '(loa n 'arnou nt)
'(ioan'amolintj"
(ioao"amountf'
Other HOME Match
_ _ _ ____no ___ J.__._____.......
Source:
(amount)
Spring 2009 Funding Pro Forma
Ver.1 - 12/17/08
U)
~
5'
<0
N
o
o
<0
"TI
c:
:J
0-
S'
<0
"'0
a
TI
o
3
III
~
<
~
~
-...
2;
0>
~li!!
ll> 0:
i~l
~j~~
II!:
ll>iUl:
crill>
lll!<i
;'j~t !
:itl
QlI13.i,
i~1
~~l
[oi
-. i g.i"
:5',
1m!
'iii :
---'~g~
!~i
,.1< [
io"
ill>i
! (j):
!~:
j~~
:::J '
.. ; 0.
H)
j'
Iii i[J
> ....l:,'~.;,!....
J~[ .~
, 1 A);
iilJ~
.. ;
1~!
!~j
~w
1::
j'" :
;-1:
~wi
!~I
'0'1'
I:;
;'N
!~:
,.. : 'I
: j
:~!
!Ai
'..Io.i
;t:.
,W'
i<o:
<0:
'0'1,
~i ~~:
l~".!~j
j~l
!~!
:~; '-;;
<0' :co
;~: r8:
01; ;3
. i -... ~
;
i ,
j !
I...;.
i r
iN:
i-..s:
:'(0 .
L~j
: j
~~l
!~i
! i
i~! l~l
,0 10l!
~L.l~!
i~)
j~:
t !
.. , !;;'.,-~,!i' ,-
,.,,::[,~! :: ;~!
....__ ':'..,:.~ _J
r8l
l~i
~,
i~!
i~:
-I
~
o
l j
l~l
I'~J
!~:
!~i,
!.h-.;
IN.
; e,,),
i'~:
!-lrol
[-~,
!-f>.
~m~
tn'
'N'
;~~
'a',
; (Jl:
:01'
: <Xl:
~ ......a. ~
:CO:
f~~
~~;
V~
;~:
!.I>oi
wL._..L_
. . i I ~ ' ~ I ;' : t ~ l f , : I ,
.."t"" ..... . . .. .. n i . ~ l
! 0 '!l Ql ~ ": ": ': ': .'.fi,i,__j._:...,""O~,'."_._',I\)~...'..,"-"
'T' ! ,r . . -
. ; ':L;1.-,'.i,.:;:..',;i,;1;:.:;.i,;;r;ii11Iiiil,iI1ii,il'. lin~1 ~IIJ
,.i .-'--,J .'''......!..1*~.
i,' i.: !a ~ ~ I .
jR~ Iii,'
... i~rj~i f"!,,',, i" i,,:, " i" i:, :;::i:::, :i:[ r ~ i~i
,.~S'~. f ~ . L.--.L___~__ ___._... i~;
If! !~! . 1 " I i~
i~: j~L l+o!o:+ol~lt~~i~l~i~l~i .
!g! i
, !~i
:~;
'<0
! !
III
i~~
II j'"
~ 1
i . ~ ~. ~ - .. i,. . . . . ~' . ; ... L.. . ~ ......
i :
is:'
,w;
i5',
i~: :~:
:"'0
;~.
ill- .
... ~ -..
!w ,(b :
~~i
""~j~i'
..; i.)_.L
. i n.
-; . L~~L_.L
! i
I !
.; j.. !':..;', :.....
. --~ ..- :
i
~
.i LI
i'
i
J.
: i i
...!_._~--- ~
i
~ - f
i.
! :
~ I!"
I
.j.
j
L...L.i
~ I !
"i--
--1-
i.__ t
i....j...J...J
i.~:
10:
,
,N
C>
o
(!)
Cl
o
-f>
<0
Ol
o
! )
, :
loot
r~i
LN' '()'I
!~iO:O;~iojo:a]-~)~jo;
jO!O;O!Oi
j 00 ~
!~!
I
1>.)' , :tn'
!~j~jo:liol~lo!~lolol
j ., .:. j !
;0:0:'0'0]
!
i 00 ~
t~i
IN.
!Ni .~
i~;o:ot~o!oo;~loiof
,:.- ' : _ .i..... :,....,1
! ! . l
!
.. __J? J.?L<:>) a! j
'CO .
io,~
!o
: <0;
, . ,
:tVi ! :;....j i .~. ~
;;;!'oo'~!o;o o;:;;;"ie>L+! it;ojo!
l
:N' l~:
1~iojo:~;o'o;0;~;0:oi
i~:
.m'
:~r
- . .. L....,:.~
,
:~,
'0'
i~
,<0
:N'
'I>.)
i ::;
r~~
fWi
;: :
-..... .;
'c...>; ....,.
tij;io o~ o!,,'o[~!O!OL .
:~.
; "':
rN'
'0:;
:~ ~l ':(
N ,0 ,-f>:
ill 0 o~ o:oo~~:o;o
j s: ""0
fQ~
""0
IXJ
<
""0:
OJ:
<,
f/)
c:
ro
~.
o
-f
):>
r
f/)
1~~
N W W N t-.> N ....... !I\).,.,
Jl!'I~Il!'!l!' ~ ~ l!' ~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~[i[~
......Nt-.>..................... 19',"=
0. 0 0 i.n 0. 0 0 0 !~ a
; .--- ---.
j (j)
<0-..... -.... (IJ CD Ol OJ Cl lif~
&; ~ ~ t &; ~ ~ 8: ,- ro
-..j-f>O'I-f>A<J)A
oOOOOOOO'l<OO1<OCOOlCD
: 5' s:
. 0 (b
!* ~ ID-
n_.'. ..Cll..?
.....
O(l)-..jQ\Q\a>-f>
~....,oo())())~OO
0"".......00......0
I~~HI
!oioioio[o!oio~i~i~l~i~!i!~i ;N
-.. i .. ..i - J , .,I.. ..:...... ;... ~. _ _.l. . """'H
. i ; ! ) Ii!
':::1:::::;:::::;:1:1:1:::1::... ;:
I If" i . ! ! . j ; ;
)~lo~+o J~!~li!~I~j~l~i l~
, l
~~~~~~1~;mi im; ~o
+Hojoio,,!~;~'~j~i~!ii~ '
~~i~;m1~ig~~~~~ l~
. ;~i~:t(~:~i~~;
;0,0;0 0 ~,.~_.o ~ N:~~(]1.;~:.c::'...""
;
'en;
i~:
l.... i
:"ioio!oioo;oi~!~i~l~i~r;i~!
. ....... .. _.__no_........... ". 0" ., .............. ..'n.__..... . _ ...... 0",
~ ' . . . !.
;1>.)
jO
, ~. ..
1~i
:~:
i~]
......: :"':~, '-.
-N ...JI:(D:.....J..(,,):.....Q:
; : ! '; .,:~ i:B'S'~;~~
iO:OjOOiO O~O;~ N;oo;()):""'O'I-..sl
: (,~
o
!~!
::r:
o
c:
(J)
Z
C>
o
1]
m
::u
}>
-i
Z
C>
OJ
C
o
G'>
m
-i
,I
L__ i.....
. !~
j~
i~
j
!z
'0
;0
j5:
im
j~
i=i
;::r
';0
:}>
;:t
:-i
'0
, j
!
.. "
~ Lu 2 7
CITY OF ASHLAND .. Gny OT ASrlldnd
2009 Program Year Community Development Blocf~t lCbBW'jce 0 COUI
Application
rAl
RECEIVEr
These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals.
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant Organization Name:
Habitat for Humanitv/Roaue Vallev
Executive Director's Name{s): Denise James
Board Member Names (attach separate sheet)
Applicant Mailing Address: PO Box 688, Medford, OR 97501
Applicant Street Address: 160 N. Fir St. Medford, OR 97501
IRS Classification: 501 (c) 3 non-orofit
Federal Tax 10#: 93-0971629
Mission Statement: (may be attached)
Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity is a faith based, volunteer, non-profit housing
ministry making homeownership possible by drawing together people of all faiths
and backgrounds to build affordable homes in partnership with those in need.
Total Employees: 4.5 FTE
Total Volunteers:
200+ annuallv
16
II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project)
Name: Denise James
Title: Executive Director
Phone Number: (541) 779-1983
Fax Number: (541) 772-2808
E-mail Address:Hfhrv@charterinternet.com
III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY
Project Name or Title:
Bud's Dairy Proiect- Habitat houses # 39-44
Expected Completion Date: December 2011
Requested CDSG Funds: $ 164,000.00
Organizational Match: $ 6.000
Funds from Other Sources: $ 659.000
Total Project Cost: $ 829,000
17
CITY OF ASHLAND
2005 Proaram Year
COSG APPLICATION CHECKLIST
In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help
to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding) the City of Ashland will
need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point
out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a
comprehensive list which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of
proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please
fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it
as part of your proposal application.
A. ~licant's Background Yes No N/A
1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X
of government?
2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X
HUD Income Guidelines (see PCille 10 for _guidelines)?
3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X
income documentation?
4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X
commitment to a proposed project?
5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X
6. Has the applicant administered a CDSG project X
previously?
7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X
reports and accountability to the City as required by
HUD?
B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A
1. Has a location for the project been selected? X
2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X
limits?
3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X
land use laws?
4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X
partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit
required?
5. Have these approvals been obtained? X
6. Does the project comply with current building code X
re~uirements?
7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X
requirements?
25
C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A
1. Is the project located in the 1 DO-year floodplain? X
2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X
3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X
on the project site?
4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X
5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X
1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify.
6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X
near the railroad?
7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X
ground flammable storage tank?
8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X
50 years or older?
9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X
review upon receiving a COBG award?
D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A
1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X
cost?
2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X
requirements?
3. wm the project trigger BOLl wage requirements? X
4. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City X
awarded grants or contracts?
E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A
1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X
2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X
3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X
F. Property Data Yes No N/A
1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X
title?
2. Are taxes on the property current? X
3. Is insurance current? X
4. What is the current debt against the property? X
5. What is the current use of the property? Empty I
site I
6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? County
assessed
If yes) what is the assessed value of the property? at
$434.000
26
Form A-1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
H p
OUS''19 roposa s
Activity Start Date Completion Date
Site Planning &
Development
qption
Site Acquisition 9/2009
Plan Development
Pre-~pplicat;on
Land Use Approval 12/2009
Construction Plans 12/2009
Final Bids
Contractor Selection
Building Permits 03/2010
Grant applications
local
state
federal
Non-government
other
Loan Applications
Construction loan nfa
Permanent
Construction Phase
Construction 3/2010 12/2011
Certificate of Occupancy
Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project
schedule
27
Form A-2
To be completed for Social Service Proposals
Social Services Proposals
Activity
Start Date
Com~letion Date
social services provides should list key benchmarks in the table above for
their proposed projects lIE hire of personnel, application for further funding,
initiation of direct client services, etc)
28
Form B-1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
H p
Uses of Funding
ouslng ro posa s
Total Cost COSG Request Other Source(s)
Acquisition Costs
Land 170,000. 164,000
Improvements 540,000.
Liens and other Taxes
Closing costs
Off-Site costs 25,000 Includes admin costs
Other
SUBTOTAL
Development Costs
Land Use Approvals
Building Permits/fees 12,000
(Include Engineering and
Community Development Fees)
System Development Charges 42,000.
(SDCs)
Relocation Costs
Environmental Report I Lead
Based Paint Clearance
Soils Report
Survey 4000
Marketing
Insurance Included wI annual
budget
Othe r
Fees
Arch itectu rallEn g in eeri n 9 30,000
Legal/Accounting 4000
Appraisals 2000
Lender fees
Construction Loan
Permanent Loan
Tax Credit Fees
Developer Fee
Consultant Fee
Other
TOTAL 829,000 164,000 see attached schedule of
financial support
29
Form 8-2
To be completed for Social Service Proposals
Social Service Proposals
Total Cost CDSG Request Other Source(s)
Direct Client Services
Wages (of personal
providing direct client
services)
Materials/Supplies
Marketing/Outreach
Program Administration COSG Funds
Includes overhead and general are not
staffing necessary to administer the available for
program (accounting, management,
grant administration) but that does program
not provide direct benefits to the
client. administration
Total Project Cost
30
Form C
SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET
Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to
sustain the operations of the program(s).
Sources See ured Conditional Tentative Commitment
(awa rded with Date
conditions)
Federal Grants
State Grants
Local Grants
Non Governmental
Grants
Donations/G ifts
Applicant
Contribution
Program Income
Loans
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
TOTAL
Please provide a description the timeline of Joan and grant application dates as
related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources
please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates.
The purchase of the property is contingent upon approval of CDBG funding. The purchase of the
property will be complete upon receipt of grant funding. Tentative start date is March, 2010. No
tentative funding sources are committed with timelines at this time. See attached schedule of
community partnerships.
31
Form D
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential
conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block
Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants:
ORGANIZATION NAME: Habitat for Humanity/Roque Valley
Organization is: 1. Corporation ( )
2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (x )
3. Partnership ( )
4. Sole Owner ( )
5. Association ( )
6. Other ( )
DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS
It additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet.
1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal
interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed.
Name, Job Title and City Department
n/a
2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland
having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project.
Namerritle
n/a
3. Provide the names of each "board membe~' of the Organization seeking CDSG funding
Name Board. Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet)
1 attached
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
additional
If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2. please provide details
regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative.
32
--._~--._- A........... ..."'.........,.1..1 .1./.1", U-l,n.c,'--lVI\..:) t\.nv Vl'rl\....t..K~
Ron McKinley, President 05/31/2010
Real Estate Broker
· Volunteer Since 2003
· ReStore Committee
· Resource Development Committee
985 Highbury Dr.
Medford, OR 97501
(H) 773-8612 (W) 941-0001
ron@cborowest.com
Bruce Van Zee, MD, Vice President 05/3112010
Retired Medical Doctor
· Volunteer Since 2007
· Construction VOlunteer
· Resource Development Committee
· Church Relations Committee
2668 Oak View Circle
Medford, OR 97504
(H) 857-1887
bvz@charter.net
Lois Nobles, Treasul.er 05/3112012
Retired Finance Officer
Volunteer Since 2005
· Finance Committee
· Resource Development
2810 KerrisdaIe Ridge Rd.
Medford~ OR 97504
(H) 779-4193
Ian 0 b les@connpoint.net
Ernie Chisholm 05/3112009
Property Owner and Manager
· Volunteer Since 2006
· Building Committee
· Resource Development Committee
3046 Wells Fargo Rd.
Central Point, OR
(H) 664-3861 (C) 890-33 J I
erniech isholm@yahoo.com
Travis Cowan 05/3112010
Thrivent Financial Officer
· Volunteer Since 2007
· Church Relations Committee
· Resource Development Committee
267 ~J2 81h St.
Ashland, OR 97520
(0) 646-4109 (C) 778-9892
Travis.cowan@thrivent.com
Peter Rogers 05/3 J /20 10
Television Station General Manager
· Volunteer Since 2007
· Publ ic Relations Committee
· Resource Development Committee
60) W. Rapp Rd.
Talent~ OR 97540
(H) 535- J 574 (0) 245-5244 (C) 941-747 J
progers. kfb i@Qwestoffice.net
February 2009
Daniel Davis 05/31/2012
Land Developer
Development of Bio-Diesel Fuel Business
· Volunteer Since 2005
· Past Board Treasurer
· Building Committee
· Resource Development Committee
4550 Little Applegate
Jacksonville, OR 97530
(h)899-911 J (c) 944-8768
dandntanad@aol.colll
Clint Driver OS/3l12011
Retired Land Developer
· Volunteer Since 2008
· Building Committee
· Construction V o/unteer
· Resource Development Committee
PO Box 1027
Jacksonville, OR 97530
(h)899-9609 (c) 840-6786
CI intdriver(@mac.com
Steve Sobhi 05/3112010
Accountant
· Volunteer Since 2007
· Church Relations Committee
· Resource Development Committee
3126 Alameda S1. #302
Medford, OR 97504
(h) 210-5530 (c) 842-2700 (0) 857-8800
steve@ashlandpartners.com
Jim Audibert 05/3l12012
Retired Banker
· Volunteer since 2009
· Finance Committee
· Resource Development Committee
440 Tucker St
Ashland, OR 97520
(H) 488-1488
j aud ibert@thegrid.net.
Approvea Budget FY 0809
Income
4010 . $ Contributions Individuals
Total 4010. $ Contributions Individuals
4020. $ Contributions Businesses
Total 4030 . $ Contributions Churches
4040 . $ Contributions/EFT HFHI/HFHO
Total 4060 . $ Grants - Other
HFH' Capacity Building Funds
FHLB funding
10ta14070' $ Agencies/Service Clubs
Tota' 4100. Donation - Materials
10tal4150 . Donations - Services & Rentals
Total 4300 . Specia' Event 'ncorne _ NET
Total 4400 . Resale Store Income - NET
Total 4500 . Other Program Income
Tota' 4600. Other Non-Program Income
Mortgage Income
Total Income
Expense
Total 5100 . Construction Costs
Total 5200. Other Mission Specific Costs
5220. International Tithe Expense
Total 5250 . Officer & Director Compensation
Total 6260. Salary & Wages _ Other
5267 -liablitY-Workmans Com
101a16280. Other Employee Benefits
Total 5290 . Payroll Taxes
Total 5330 . Supplies
AmeriCorps VISTA
5340. Telephone & Fax
5350 . Postage and Shipping
Total 5360 . Occupancy Expense
Tola16370. Equipment Costs
Total 5380 . Printing and Publications
10ta15390'Travel
10ta15400' ConferenceS/ConventionslMtgs
5410 . Interest
5430 . Memberships & Dues Expense
Total 5490 . Other Expenses
Total 7250 . Director/Officer Compensation
Total 7260. Salary, Wages Other
7267 -liability-Workmans Comp
Total 7280 . Other Employee Benefits-M&G
Total 7290. Payroll Taxes-M&G
7295 . Payroll Fees (ADP)-M&G
7310 . Accounting Fees-M&G
Total 7330 . Supplies-M&G
7340 . Telephone & Fax-M&G
7350 . Postage & Shipplng-M&G
Total 7360 . Occupancy Expense-M&G
Total 7370 . Equipment Costs-M&G
Total 7380 . Printing & PUbfications-M&G
Total 7390 . Travel-M&G
Tola17400. Conference, Conventions & Mtgs
7410. Interest-M&G
Projected FY10
167,200,00
50,000.00
87,500.00
5,800.00
275,000.00
40,000.00
106,800.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
25.000.00
50,000.00
26,000.00
500.00
7,000.00
85.200,00
986,000.00
=
730,300.00
4,500.00
8,400.00
12,950,00
42,350.00
7,930.00
7,850.00
4,591,00
400.00
5,000.00
750.00
1,000,00
1,097.00
2,200.00
850.00
1,350.00
150.00
3,500.00
465.00
500.00
25,910.00
24,364.00
1,800.00
4,450.00
3,354.00
830.00
5,200.00
1,200.00
1,400.00
1,300.00
3,062.00
1,000,00
1,000,00
3,775.00
1,300.00
1,500.00
'"'PfJl VVC\,A UUU~t::l r r VQV~
7430. Memberships & Dues Expense M&G
10ta17490. Other Expenses-M&G
Total 8250 . Officer/Director Compensation
Total 8260. SalarylWages Other-Fundraising
8267 Liability-Workmans Comp
Tota' 8280. Other Employee Benefits-Fund
Tota' 8290. Payroll Taxes.Fundraising
Total 8330 . Supplies-Fundraising
8360 . Postage & Shipping
Total 8370 . Equipment Costs-Fundraising
Total 8380. Printing & Publications-Fundrai
Total 8390. Travel- Fundraising
Total 8400 . Conferences, Conventions & Mtg
Total 8490 . other Expenses-Fundraising
Loans Expense
Total Expense
Net Income
300.00
1,200.00
4,305.00
23,242.00
450.00
800.00
725,00
500.00
4,000.00
2,500.00
13,000.00
1,300.00
300.00
1,800.00
24,000.00
996,000.00
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley
Sources of Community Partnerships
attachment
Identifiable Sources of Income/Donations
Foundations:
Meyer Memorial Foundation
West Family Foundation
Cheney Family Foundaton
Carpenter Foundation
Anna May Foundation
Juan Young Foundation
Business Partnerships
State Farm Insurance
Home Depot
Lowe's
in-kind sponsors
Boise floor joists
CertainTeed house siding, roofing material
Ferguson's plumbing fixtures
West Coast Appli; kitchen appliances
Hunter Douglas privacy room blinds
Square D electrical breakers
Whirlpool appliances
faith organization partners
TableRock Christian Fellowship
Trail Christian Fellowship
1st Presbyterian Church IJacksonville
1st Presbyterian Church/Ashland
Eastwood Baptist Church
United Methodist Church
Temple Emek
ROGUE VALLEY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
... , ., '.~;;.'-';.:j<'\'.""<::;:{,;i;\\1;Y';H.\':~iT\j.i.lHi;
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfHRV) is a non profit organization building houses for low-
income people currently living in substandard conditions. HfHRV's goals are to provide affordable
housing for those in need who qualify for the program. The proposed project is to purchase
property included in the Bud's Dairy Subdivision accommodating six units which will be constructed
by volunteers supervised by professional staff. The project addresses Goal # 2 in the City of
Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated plan to increase the homeownership opportunity for extremely
low and moderate-income households. 2.1 encourages the acquisition and construction of
affordable hOUSing by private developers. The National Objective met is to benefit low and
moderate income persons. There is an increased need for affordable housing units in the city of
Ashland. Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley has the capacity, and experience to fulfill the
expectations of the project. With continued economic distress, the need will be increased, the entire
community will benefit in the able to offer affordable housing to the working class and lower-income
population.
Habitat for HumanitylRogue Valley's philosophy is that this is a hand up, not a handout. Each
family contributes 500 hours of "sweat equity" by working on the construction of their home.
HfHRV is the general contractor for each project, following all building codes and requirements.
Providing most of the labor for construction, volunteers are the backbone of the organization.
Professionals, contractors and trades people donate their skills while others perform most of the
daily tasks. Most of the materials are donated or sold at a discount to HabitaURV by local suppliers.
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley's overall project goals and objectives are: 1) to move families out
of substandard housing and assist them in becoming new homeowners in the Rogue Valley; 2) to
form relationships with individuals and groups who will be committed to providing labor to achieve
the goals; and 3) to increase awareness of the housing needs of low-income people in the
community and ways the community can support the mission.
2) Project Summary:
HfHRV requests funding in the amount of $164,000 of CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a 0.39
acre site at the junction of Dollarhide and Abbott Streets within the Old Bud's Dairy Subdivision. The
subdivision was annexed to the City in 2003, and the property was designated as the location of a
six unit affordable hOUSing development to comply with the City's annexation criteria. The site has
received planning approvals for the development of a six unit apartment complex; Habitat will
develop six condominiums using the same site plans previously approved by the City.
3) Property and Project Information
a) The property is centrally located relative to jobs, schools, transportation, shopping and
services. The property is located within a subdivision relatively close to a main thoroughfare,
Tolman Creek Rd, located near Shopping centers, pUblic transportation lines, and services.
b) The total floor area of the entire building for the six units is 5,898 sq ft. There are no garages
included for the project, and the total sq footage of the covered areas is 258. The lot size is
0.39 acre.
c) The project consists of six condominiums, each with two bedrooms.
d) All of the units will be sold to families with fow-income levels, between 300/0-600;0 of the
federal median.
e) All six units will be accessible to the disabled. Each unit will be accommodating with door
width size, and one bedroom downstairs.
f) The average square footage for each of the six units is 5,791. Each unit will have covered
front and back porches. There are no plans to include a garage with any unit.
g) The common areas include a parking area, wetland areas with public access along the
natural area north and south of the project.
h,i,j,k)There is no commercial space associated with the project.
I) HfHRV carefully screens applicants through a rigorous selection process. The three main
criteria to qualify for the HfHRV program are: 1) income levels must be between 30-600/0 of
federal median, 2) individuals must show a need for housing, either through substandard
housing conditions, overcrowding, or paying more than 500/0 of their income in rent, and 3)
applicants must be willing to IIpartner" with HfHRV; committing to at least 500 hours of sweat
equity on their home. Additionally, HfHRV looks for individuals that will take advantage of the
hand up opportunity, will become good neighbors, and responsible tax payers.
When HfHRV has land and resources identified for each project, an orientation meeting is
held, and all interested individuals are invited. HfHRV will target applicants that are currently
living in Ashland, its surrounding towns, or individuals that are employed in Ashland as
potential future HfHRV families. In addition to a commitment of construction on their home,
applicants must attend a series of homeowner training workshops including budgeting,
homeowner maintenance, and good neighbor skills. Services are provided in partnership with
community agencies. as well as HfHRV staff and volunteers.
m) HfHRV will impose a 3D-year period of affordability for each of the units. Upon any transfer of
ownership within a 3D-year period, potential buyers must qualify for Ashland's affordability
housing standards with income levels under 80%> of federal median.
4) Services
Low-income families will receive direct benefit from the services of HfHRV. Each unit will be
constructed using volunteer labor under the direct supervision of paid staff of HfHRV, HfHRV solicits
discounts on material and required professional services. In addition, HfHRV provides a direct
economic impact to the local business community with the purchase of construction materials and
services. Each unit will be sold to individuals consisting of family units; children will attend local
schools and shop locally. HfHRV continues to partner with each family after the house is sold to
each Habitat family, offering support as needed.
5) Work Program
Form A-Project Schedule attached.
6) Financial Information
Form B-Uses of Funding & Form C-Sources of Funding attached. Operating Budget
Income/Expense schedule attached.
a) Assumptions to determine the total project cost are estimates based on prior construction
projects the organization has recently completed.
b) There will be no relocation costs associated with the project. Repair and maintenance
2
expenses are incorporated into the annual budget developed specifically for construction
projects.
c) HfHRV can assume financial support from community partners, a strong foundation of
individual support, foundations and the business community based on a 21 year history of
past support. HfHRV conducts annual fundraising events and capital campaigns to maintain
the continuity of support. In conjunction with a strategic plan to increase the building capacity
of the organization, additional staff will be recruited and hired to facilitate additional resource
development. Additionally, HfHRV holds the mortgage note to each house sold, mortgage
income received monthly is reinvested into new construction projects. Income from mortgage
notes increases with each house sold.
d) HfHRV can foresee no expenses non-typical, or outside industry standards. Additional
fundraising activity would be conducted if unforeseen expenses Occur.
e) HfHRV has no funding commitments for this particular project at this time. Sponsorships for
each unit will be solicited from the business community, collaborations with church
organizationsl as well as local and national foundations.
f) HfHRV will apply for a property tax exemption that will apply only until the construction period
is over. Each homeowner will be responsible for individual property taxes. Six units will
provide an estimated $7,200 per year in property tax revenue to the county.
7) Funding for the proposed project is requested for the acquisition of the property. There will be no
federal funding for other activities associated with the project such as any development costs,
architect expenses, or construction.
General Information
a) The proposed project is inside the city limits of Ashland, OR
b) HfHRV serves families and individuals with income levels between 300;() and 60% of the
federal median income using the standard MSA determined by HUD
c) A proposed offer between HfHRV and Russ Dale (seller) is contingent upon the award of
CDBG funding in the amount of $164,000. There is no other financial or legal commitment
made to the project.
Housing Development, Land Acquisition
d) There are no structures on the current site.
e) The proposed housing site is not located in a 100 year flood plain.
t) the report is not available to HfHRV at this time.
g) The proposed site is not located adjacent to a major arterial road or railroad.
h) No above ground flammable storage tanks are located near the project site.
i) The proposed site will not impact any historic features.
8) Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfHRV) is a non-profit volunteer organization dedicated to
building affordable homes in partnership with those in need. The service area is primarily Jackson
County in Southern Oregon. The foundation of Habitat for Humanity was based on Christian values;
however there is no discrimination on anyone because of religion. People of any or of no faith are
encouraged to participate either as a volunteer or prospective homeowner. One third of all families
accepted into our program are Hispanic, the remaining two thirds are Caucasian. People served are
those living in substandard housing with income between 300/0 and 600/0 of the federal median
income for Jackson County. Homes are sold to HfHRV families with a no profit, no-interest
mortgage. The average monthly payment, including taxes and insurance, is $500 to $550. A
monthly payment this low is affordable to those with a lower income and allows the family to own a
..,
.)
home while providing for their family's basic needs such as food and clothing.
The Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley affiliate was organized in 1987 and built its first house in
1989-90. HfHRV recently completed construction of its 33rd house, accommodating 192 people,
113 of whom are children.
9, 10) HfHRV sells homes to low-income families with affordable monthly mortgage payments. The
affordability allows families the abifity to provide other basic necessities such as food, clothing,
health care and day care. Homeownership lessens the burden to government and social service
agencies, allowing for self-sufficiency. Houses are constructed to accommodate special needs as
allowable.
a) Within Jackson County, forty-seven percent of households have a low or moderate income
and 220/0 have incomes that are considered very low income (0 - 500/0 of the median income).
Most of the families earning an income this low would not be able to qualify for conventional
mortgages. HfHRV has goals of constructing four houses per year, directly serving
approximately 20 people every year. The life long effects however affect a much higher
number of those that benefit.
b) HfHRV targets those with income levels between 300/0 and 60% of federal median income.
Monthly mortgage payments are never more than 300/0 of the family income at the time of the
mortgage transfer.
11) HfHRV has a diligent and rigorous process to ensure selected applicants are within the target
range. Imposing selling restrictions to 30 years will maintain the units remain in the affordable
housing range.
12) There will not be any demolished structures due to the project.
13) HfHRV has an ongoing construction process. The organization has been building the foundation
structure to build capacity with goals to build more homes each year, and serve more families in
need. A full time construction manager has recently been hired, a resource development director will
be placed with the organization in the near future to increase base funding. The organization is used
as a training program with RCC and other local schools. In addition, a partnership with the Job
Council allows YouthBuild to train students in construction. The organization is currently building two
houses in Medford, with plans to begin building two houses in Ashland on Bridge St in June. Upon
completion of the Medford project expected in December, 2009, the Bud's Dairy project can begin.
This will allow the organization time to secure house sponsorships for each of the six units
proposed.
a) HfHRV has built and sold 33 houses, and has not foreclosed on any homes. The partnership
HfHRV builds with each family allows the organization to offer guidance and support as
necessary after each house is sold. The supervision during construction is that of paid staff, a
professional general contractor as well, with many years of experience in the construction
field. In addition, a strong support system for the organization is in place with dedicated board
and committee members which provide professional advice as needed.
b) The ongoing operating expenses and maintenance expectations are adequate and
reasonable, computed in the annual budget.
c) HfHRV has an accepted offer from the seller to purchase the property contingent on the
approval of CDBG funding. The funds are available to pay the remaining balance of the
property sales agreement. (attached)
d, e) No relocation will be required.
4
f) There are no further approvals from the city to be approved, with exception to building
permits.
g) The pre-application has been approved by the Ashland planning department.
h) The improvements to the property will be newly constructed townhouse style condominiums.
i) The organization seeks house sponsorships for each project as well as strong commitments
from individual donors, church partners, businesses and civic organizations. Businesses that
continually support the organization with in-kind products used in construction are
CertainTeed for siding, Ferguson's for plumbing fixtures, West Coast appliance, Whirlpool,
Home Depot and Lowe's.
14) There will be no negative impact on any historic or architecturally significant properties from
the proposed project.
15) letters of support attached.
16) Application checklist attached, Forms A,B& C attached. Operating budget, sources of
community partnerships attached.
5
'\A.;tQ \.C~-lC YJ Uyt::r 1.-.1'=S
~ 0001/0001
Relocation and Acquisition Disclosure to the SeDer
With 8 Voluntary, Arms Length, Purchase Agreement
Buyers:Jogue
Valley
Habitat
for
Humanity
SeI1ers:Bud's Dairy Ltc
Property Street AddresS:_Dollarhide,
act#
10978908
City/StatelZip:..Ashland Or, 97520
To comply with Federal relocation and acquisition disclosure requirements pursuant to 49 CPR
Section 24.101. you are hereby provided the following notification related to the acquisition of the
above referenced property:
1. The Buyer is prepared to pay S_$J70~OOO.OO for clear title
to the Property under the conditions described in the contract of sale.
2. The Buyer's unappraised estimate of the fair market value of the Property is
$_170.000.00
3. The Buyer does not have the power of eminent domain relating to the purchase and
acquisition of the Property.
4. The Buyer will be using federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to complete this purchase. HUn will not use its eminent domain
authority (0 initiate condemnation of the Property.
5. The Seller agrees that no tenant will be permitted to occupy the Property before the
sale is completed.
6. nus is a voluntary transaction by both parties. Since the purchase is a voluntary. ann's
length transaction, relocation payments or other relocation assistance under the
Unifonn Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of ] 970
(URA), or any other law or regulation are not appH
7.
If negotiations between both parties fail, Bu
the property.
C(...~~ {Ylo~Co}'r\-ro..
bl-fj o~1 D5ldl
e further action to acqu~re
so..
. r
John Fields
,.
~ .
I
845 Oak Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 482~8442
,
To: City of Ashland
Re: CDBG awards
2/25/2009
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to encourage you to grant Habitat for Humanity of the Rogue Valley the funds to proceed in 6
houses in the Bud's Dairy subdivision on Clay Street. I have ~o~ked with Habitat as a vo.lunteer for over.
fifteen years. We have ~teadily grown our.capacity to create home ownership for working families who e~~n
below ~O% of the Rogue' Valley's' median .income. We have built and finaJ?-ced houses for over 30 families iri-
the Rogue Valley. We provide the necessary community follow-up and support, and the ongoing education
in home ownership that gives us a 100% success rate in keeping our owners in their homes.
We started building our houses on single family lots and with the increase in land cost we have
successfully turned to building attached Row House condominiums., We completed a 6 Unit group of Row.
Houses in Central Point in 2004. We did a two unit project in partnership with Ashland Community Land
Trust last year. We will be starting two more units on Bridge Street with the Land Trust ~arly this sumri1er.
I believe that Habitat for Humanity of the Rogue Valley has become a yaluable team player in s\bsidizing'
owners~ip housing for working poor far:nilies. Our pr?gral11s give families a. boost up to improve their lives
: and becom~ responsible citizens and fespected ~embers of our community. I think with the reduced cost of (-~ .
. . '
the Tax'Lots offered in th~ Bud'ts Dairy subdivision ~hat this would be an excelient ,community .investment. I
, ,
bel~eYe that H:abitat i~ the most qualified candidate for th~ c; ~G money that is gO~be-a '.Iable in the
2009 -2010 fiscal year. 'i' ~ . .
. Thank you for your consideration. ". . ~ .
~71- . /;/
. / J aIm Fields
'-" /
J/ .
.. r
,.( .. . . ~ ,. -: :;. .:
, ~" ~~ i . . ~ _.
. :. <I
; : " .. ", , ' " ~ :
-'. '-: n ;:? ~";. -~~ ~:. n
City of Ashland
22 No. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: CDBG Awards and Habitat for Humanity
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been practicing architecture in Ashland for over 20 years and served on the Ashland Planning
Commission as well as designed numerous homes for Habitat for Humanity. NAHB reported this week
that the Medford Metro Area is the 6th least affordable region in the United States. Some regions of the
United States such as San Francisco or NYC may be higher priced, but not against wages that are
available in the same region. This designation is nothing to be proud of and it is to that end that I urge
this Committee to grant the necessary CDBG funds to Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley to proceed in
developing 6 homes on the former Bud/s Dairy land on Clay St.
I believe that Habitat for Humanity provides mitigation to one of the most urgent needs in Ashland, that
of affordable housing without any profit motive. They have an excellent record of building small scale,
but similar quality homes to surrounding neighborhoods. Having local working class residents invested
in their community through homeownership is key toward a truly integrated town. The Community
Building that emanates from the 100's of hours of local volunteer labor is also invaluable for any town
that experiences political dividedness. lastly, true community Sustainability can not be accomplished by
simply building with IIgreen materialsl/. If the community can not sustain and house the people that
work there providing services, then commuting up and down the Rogue Valley keeps increasing along
with fossil fuels, smog, & traffic.
Six new homes for Habitat families does not completely solve Ashland's gentrification, but it certainly is
working in the right direction.
Thank you for your consideration,
Raymond Kistler, AlA
lO!ilHO <lNV"H!;v a L01 ^VM 3QIl'!a'fl1OQ
\.~.~." ~r~1 U'~llj ~o O'"'HSV ;.
133~.lS NOSn"'l" SS<;
(n~. 110Y zm'll(.((l'j Jyj o(lloHa (l~sJ
~~x. ao Q~OiQ1H 2 JtJ/1S l"1l0~WH 1 ~~tl
''Nj I~a ~"1-f ~ ::
~ ~ml1In8
, NOISIAI<JSM A~IV<J $<Jf'l8 'mrollo!
S311~3dOMd 31VO SSnlf
z
o
~
~
>
W
....J
W
f-
Z
o
"'
u.
-==1J:il1';i
2
o
~
'<
>
W
....J
W
l-
I
I..!)
~
"'
:2
o
~
'<
>
l1J
rn
f-
u.
l1J
...J
:2
o
~
'<(
>
UJ
....J
W
"'
'<
W
0:
133ijlS HOSI-rnt S9S
'>>!.l.~ ~ 'IJJc.ll1/l 3 .lUllS ~"IJQ~~J<i 1 ~~
..1~:~:~~~.~1:..-""':=--::.::;=~=~~;!~~!~
.-.,....--.......---... --
....... ---,-.-........~- .-~...."..-...#-..._...
-..""....-....... .....-..................-- --~.-...,.._-:-
...,..............-........-.-..-... '''-'--:--''''--
..- _......-.......-"'"'f--I.......--......_._~._.
_..--.'lo__~_....._,~ _..._........_1____.....
:{~ \" u.. !
:~ < O!
!
i: ZOSl6 l'O <l"'1~,( Ll101 "'1H. 3QII-1!1Y11OQ
t : 9 9NI01Ine
: NOlSI/lIOSf1S ^~IVCl sons :D3rolld
S3Wl3dOijd 31\'0 ssn~
.~ '~ ~'1f~
: :
; 2 '
~ ~ i
l ~:
i~
i ">:
i~:
~ ~ i
~l
~;
~.
"I;
~
>\
~ 1
~ :
.___~_..._..~._.._.______.__'--._'_'_~~~_______________~_..._..~___.___________.~._~_.....__.___.__.,...___._____.~.__~~._.._........_..~~.............__._......~~~__._........._.M..._...._...
i : ~
.~~_.__..._........~..."'Y'._._.._.____..........................._~_______.__.__..., ~
r ---'-j"-'--"T= I - ! ~~c=l:,..'-.'..'~""--"r"~'."..,.l~"~--------r~~W)~F~~;t'.=-'^.:-~-l ;
~~.~"..:..~.~...__....._-_.......-.j '. ;~:
' ;~
,:---+----:-----~-c--:-----:----:----,--'-.._..:--~'~l'.--~
..,
.(""
'-,
> ~:
j
':1
~+.. :. ".- :'.. ,- ~..... -- ~'.. ,::'........~....-..:.....'.::..- .~'...- ~ ...... -' ...~
~
&
: ~'=.-~...::==-~_=.;:::::~.;..";.;_7,""_~-:;..-;-_-=.-.:..;;=;~:;;;-~::--:=""~~:.~__
'. ,'.',',
'.l~'.-..'.-...",.,....
'''-.,:.\.
L____L:..._ :,~':'< ',."':,,,' :.. ::. :':_ :":.>' ,'L, ;'i,__:
~:.jr~\:;.,~>]r.j!
~ " ".. -'. ~. ..... '. , . .., "_ ". i 1
--~ ....-.......~......_.:....--_.__":. ...._~ ~-~
;', r .. -. - ',', - ...., "'~
~-:....J. .
---....----~ ----
\
l
n
I
'- .
, . "', .. ..... . '. ". ",.1
..-.[~ : :::::~ ::~~,':::::.',~::::::~~-::::::>:..:.: ':.'.<.<, ::.~ .
.. -'. ,'. ", >....._-.::..r~-i
f.~\".~ ."......."..:.. ..,.... " . '. i ""
::-_.....;..~.~:;.._'
"" ....- "', ',~
", "" -'i
'f'" ....., .
l' "
....... ........,- ......, ..'.....
----------.--
b
~
;:Ii' '.
....... ___-~'~'~...-_.6.~.~_~--...~_.-.___--..-
,_:':---
-,_._~.'
~~~----~~
______. Sol,
~ .--_.~.--' ~--""-:-,-----,-
.: -~...._-.-
"':'.:.""..
. .~~'..
'. ......../.\./ ,\~::.~.:."'...~~.,.
....;\ . . ..... ,
:~,.. . _ _ _ _ __ __ ~~."::~_~~~~.:..: ___ __ . : __ ;.;.: h ~t . .
...--"".-}.~
----...----::
-'.
. '
~.>..~ ;y~:-'~--'-_..-:,----.-::....~~.~<<. - .
_r...........-._____"'_~_-...--.........~___ ~1...' .
F'<
r--------.
\l
j'
i ..,
-..' , ;~ :
:: " ~~~;iti 'r~l !Jl!!
~...l_._._!; ..... '. :'J: ~ 1 ~ i j ;; )
.' 1 ~~=~. 9 i~.r::---..J_._LL.:l-_.. i: ~;
.' fi ~___.-:-___~; :1 ~....__.j
i..----..-,---..----jl"-"',~=,~.~7.\~:~=~,~~i , ".'---.'
!~ . - ~ ~ ~q
i lr~..
l :j
i :'
t :!
~ j;
~
~
l
~
~ ~:
~ ~
j
r--'''~ir .
;k,
i ! ~ .,
L_.-1~"
..., . i H ~
~ ~; .~.;~.._---.,~___r_-H ;-...;.j], I ~_.':.
b ~~.',;,r. "'~ 1 j : - u' ---,. - '-'. i
-i ~ _ r+o-,! -{ ~ ~~
" .~~ . ~.._._-_.-,...........~~-_........--..._--------...----~_._.~~
'. ' .,::: ~L__.l.=j:; I ! l; .-.j-C~1~=~'~.<"'.~"~\~~?-~="~'~'."7'~..-~"t
.ii'.::"i"""""f-"'T"{ 'ii it .;: -'~._...'-_._-- -0 . i_~ ~_ ..' :~~-....
.) I ~ .' ~f-~-...-;---i-....---..~::t ;_,~..u ~
,2~jl: :. !~~tL~g
,: ~ :j ; ~-"-"-'-"H-"--;--- ,.... ll-
. . .
~-~~:1..='.:~.=~
. '.
u
~~
rm._..._.~!
LJ.
~~
..;~ ~
.....
o
~
~; -~~
i~I:~~
=~~. ~~
,: i~
<
_I l
z
<(
...J
C>-
UI
I-
H
1/)
\!)
\!)
Z
H
CJ
...J
~
::>
Q)
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
t
i
I
_---1
, ..... IJ'<t'lD(Im..,I(..",;....."'\tlUW 11 ::-~'E~~..5"~~~iF~~~!I' I- ~I
! lJJWI$ ~O!l"lvoll. I ""Ut%w",,,, II"'" "',_.... "., ~-----~.____._.____._. lU ,. I lO.
O1lfle j 'J' ::.:::~:::::=::;;.~:::,:;;:;;,=!:. 0
; AIUVQ SQ08 mOOd;/ ~31H13dOtld 31110 ssntl II ~ ~ 'Nfo~ ~ j ;::_":':"'~:.;:-~-:.=~-'::."'.'=~.::-='l ~ ~
------~....-. .---....-___1 '_,;r~ -n .........vl, .=:::::.'::~..,..::~~-.:.~-::-.=-~~i, ""
--~---I '-fTTJml~~il
I'~l~ W"~;I
(1'1 ...!
~I~ i~ ~;,'
,- ~ .bil
".s' toJ'iI
8. I ..~
I~jilljl~~,
/-n l~i;1sl
_lliilll
r---.-,
........,. ..... I
~ ~:~ ~~ I
I f :l:!!:" "/
I :f
,~
! ~ 1! r
10 -s: "'I
t ~ ~-.. '(1.
I j Hg ~j
I .. ".,. ~ ::I.. I
J ~ ~i~ !~ I
\~~__J
'.'-1 ':~r--~..~
:~....J-===:.~;_.::-~.;~~~#.~~.....~,_
"I [ ~. '~t'll "r
: I !. ~~~"ii: f Jr JI i . <;. );! t
! :. J f.L :..:_1 : H' i: :,! I
! !i .~; L" (~/ -;-- f. .'~ ;:-=-~ ...i,! ;i i r I
. 1~:-1"--"" ~r At I : hllr.;+;-,.;'r"; .' :: I .
r ,:~'I=::~;.. ,~~~,... ':~,: ,~d:>- - t@)l'/:
I ! it., ll, "c '". f m; ','
III r .[."i-r-..-:~~Si[:~;l...-l; -"~ J... @~J "
I I ;~}'}"" ~W ~ I , .d~::r::"7 ..':.: ;: ~
I , '~'l.~-.l 'I J f-c~' '" '.. 1'. I
~"'-' 11E1~~_:' .;Jf~=;j'j .. n~; "~;:~l--I-
,1 i'l ..;.!lti' EJ~' 'Ii I:; -.-J' ::z
I' I- ~..-.I , ..
~ /.."i~~: ;[;:.;'7~~:~ ) _..~ 11'1 ;~
~.".. ",>, ,\:;: ,.r;J ..~!If 'I;..;." .. .. " ,. ,. 03
r~f~..;.:,;:'~.~I~l ,','J "1 ni
rn_.',..i.;I'L!tl' :il '/
. =L :r':JL.,!w.!;;~_.. ec .. -"-r::'~"~-~ll
L ~i;~;~~:~U4~~~~ r-:: j:JJ II
r--I~R:t~~~<':: .1~:~:} ~i",j! I
!'-"-L1...~;-.TI~..._~.~~ :; II
;' i ili~-"~ .frf11 ~ .;.J ~~l '.1
I I '''i HrDij.'~!:' ,,' ~ I
:L_,i ~-L}~~::;~"-c~::5-1l-
~..._~..._~ .__J
I....T .. ~'~l" ....t
;;) '~I ~Ii~-~i~lr~~ i -:IJ'--- I '!,' II
H ii!:1 .! ; I:.~" I ./
. t I J : ;. J L- : ~ ~;/.. 'I
I~li 1~-'I,~~~.r.1-1~11 i
Ii ~ !~ '1': <~'; . I
ifnt' lJ- .I~l~l _ '~;::,
,b ~J ! l-~.: _ '~.~~.:. _.._Ff*!-8Y :
~!~ ii I!:I i ;)l~ ...J I
m" I t- u.~. -ff( i ' ; : I ~
,UHf. I!:, tL):f;:;' ..~....;~; ~III~~
~~ I ~I .._.1..1 :1;";"';'<-:-;. . Ox
~~~ /;/1 r~:. '=-":::-rr~' ji.it~ :1"1:- ; i 11 ~f
.111 .'.1 ,. , q'l:.... " ......
.1 I ' ~ J 1+" : U' . .;e
;I, 41 II'rb~:.~;;', :1' N
j~H', , d
;t!.J!.J j ~-I ;'~:...., ---ryU~;~~I:
m ~ij II'! I !I' ~.~~-i
:<1 .< I i I [ -..~_. .~. ./ I; I i
Hi-fi ,ILTr~iCJT~:LLJ4.1 '~;:i
~~d~ l I i f L....., --- I
-Z" q, 'rn"- -.-.../ -
;,;;~ 1,1 I ' -i'fr,:~il-j II
;:t "1 Ii~t-iw+~r- ~ I I :I~'
I ;~! ;i I II! IlL~r~~ I JIll
HI j~ 1 uL_f-,_~~:,Lj~_ ._ ...1
L:~ t' ~"----.l----:t.~
..-L~_'.~-4
u_ j
... r
A~Cr:JVE'~
Fi::B 1 0 2009 i
I~.... Gtry or A ., '. d
· -Jerel 0' '. ~lJio.lI-
. "" OffIce 0 Caur
Proposal
City of Ashland
2009 CDBG
Submitted By:
Pathway Enterprises, Inc.
.. r
r:.,
CITY OF ASHLAND
2009 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Application
These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals.
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant Organization Name:
Pathway Enterprises, Inc.
Executive Director's Name(s}: _Rebecca L. Simpson
Board Member Names (attach separate sheet)
Applicant Mailing Address:
655 Washington Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Applicant Street Address:
Same
IRS Classification:
Federal Tax 10#:
501 (C) (3)
93-0891433
Mission Statement: (may be attached)
Attached
Total Employees:
120
Total Volunteers:
o
16
-- r
II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project)
Name:_Rebecca L. Simpson
Title: CEO, President
Phone Number: 541-488-1536
Fax Number: 541488-5948
E-mail Address: bsimpson@pathway-inc.org
III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY
Project Name or Title:
_ Supported Living Project
Expected Completion Date: _December 31, 2009
Requested COBG Funds:
$_30,000
$_87,327
$_121500
$_1081327
Organizational Match:
Funds from Other Sources:
Total Project Cost:
17
2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a
list of project objectives.
Brief Description
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. proposes to use this grant to encourage transitional and
supportive housing services to adults with developmental disabilities (special needs
population) who have extremely low - and low-income, who desire to live in Ashland,
with whom Pathway currently supports in residential (group home) housing in Ashland
and Medford.
Project Background
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. has a proud history of delivering support services to citizens of
Ashland since 1985. Primarily, PEl provides services to adults with developmental
disabilities by offering supported housing, community recreation, sociaI/ cultural
inclusion and employment opportunities that promote living, working and recreating as
independently as possible.
Many of the individuals who receive support services through PEl have expressed their
desire to live more independently than their current group home living. Because our
mission and values reflect our purpose to continually enhance, support and honor people
with disabilities, we intend to design housing appropriate to their skills, abilities, and
support needs by transitioning five (5) individuals into a supported living model of
service delivery.
Project Objectives
1) PEl will recruit, hire and train three (3) Community Living Specialists by June
1,2009.
2) PEl staff, in conjunction with the individuals served, will identify, plan and
transition two (2) supported individuals from their current group home to a
supported living model of service delivery (apartment or other identified
housing arrangement) by August 1,2009. The additional three (3) individuals
will transition by November 1,2009.
3) Follow-along monitoring will not require monies from this grant.
.. r
3) Property and Project Information
Not Applicable to this request
.. r
4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible
target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income,
homeless, special needs).
Services To Be Provided
Five (5) individuals receiving services will, in conjunction with their service planning
team, identifY their wants, needs and abilities for pwposes of a thoughtful and planfull
transition from their group home living to a supported apartment (or other identified
housing) that will enhance their independence and self worth.
Staff will assist the individuals served by this project through systems that ensure PEl is
meeting their support needs as well as enhancing their independence and self worth.
These systems include, but are not limited to the following services:
· Functional Assessment (daily living skills)
o Housekeeping
o Laillldry
o Menu planning, shopping and meal prepara,tion
· Risk and Safety Assessment
· Benefits Review
· Environmental Analysis
· Budget I Money Skills Assessment and Review
· Transportation Assessment
· Medication Management
· Medical Providers (appointments, follow up, etc)
· Recreational and Cultural Desires
PEl's individualized service delivery system ensures specific skills are identified
(through the assessment process noted above), taught, tracked, quantified, reported and
celebrated.
Eligible Target Population Receiving Direct Benefit From These Services
All individuals served by this project are identified as low-income/ special needs.
-. r
5) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks with
estimated start and completion of task (please complete attached Form A -
Project Schedule).
Work Program and Time Line (See Attachment A)
1) Upon grant notification, PEl's Human Resource Director will begin recruitment
for three (3) Community Living Specialists.
Time Line: Begin recruitment and hiring process on or before April 15, 2009.
2) New staff will receive PEl core competency and regulatory training in
conjl.Ulction with the OAR's (Oregon Administrative Rules).
Time Line: Upon hire and no later than May 1, 2009.
3) Staff will complete assessments and individualized planning will identify specific
housing options.
Time Line: After training is complete and no later than June 1,2009.
4) Housing options are presented to the individual and their team and a decision is
made. Time lines for moving are identified by the individual and their team.
Time Line: No later than August 1, 2009.
-- r
6) Financial Information
Detailed Financial Description of the Proposed Project (See Attachments, Form B
and C)
Wages for three (3) full time staffwho will provide the services described in the project.
Staff will receive benefits as described in the Employee Handbook and adhere to
Ashland's Living Wage as determined by law. Wages and benefits will be administered
by the Finance and Human Resource Staff.
Materials and Supplies
Supplied by PEL
Marketing! Outreach
Recruitment ads for staff: Approximately $100.00 per day for 16 days = $1600.00
Program Administration Costs (See Attachments B and C)
Total Project Cost (See Attachments Band C)
Other Sources of Income
PEl will receive DD54 County Funds to pay for direct client services needed beyond the
scope of this project.
Clarification: The county funds do not provide funding to ensure staff training and
planning or recruitment as identified in this project. They provide minimal monies to PEl
for direct services.
a) Financial Assumptions
The wages for support staff will meet Ashland's Living Wage as applicable to this
project. In addition, wages are determined by ORA's (Oregon Rehabilitation
Association) state salary survey, Pathway's budgetary process and projected skills
and abilities needed to ensure success.
b) N/A
c) Other costs associated with this project: Disaster Preparedness and Safety
training; written, visual and audio materials, disaster packs for each home.
d) No non-typical expenses will be incurred.
e) See Attached
t) N/A
". r
7) Eligibility for Federal Funding
Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project?
Property Acquisition No
New Construction No
Removal of Architectural Barriers No
Rehabilitation Costs No
Development Costs No
Client Services Yes
Specification Preparation No
Relocation Benefits No
Appraisal No
General Information
a) Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? If not, explain.
Yes, the project is administered and executed within Ashland City limits. There
are, however, individuals served by PEl who reside in Medford and may benefit
from this project.
b) Specify the proposed tenant of client income level.
100% of the individuals who will benefit from this project are well below the
Extremely Low Income Level, 30% AMI, as noted on page 11 of this proposal.
c) Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project.
Pathway will match 10% of the CDBG award.
d) Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific
Information.
Will permanent housing units be converted or demolished?
No.
e) Is the proposed housing site located in a 100 year flood plain?
No.
t) Has a levell environmental assessment been done for the site?
N/A
g) Is the proposed housing site located by a major arterial road or railroad?
N/A
h) Is the site located by and aboveground flammable storage tank?
N/A
i) Will the project impact historic features?
No.
-. r
8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may
request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years
prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to
successfuUy complete the project.
Agency's Mission
In summary, Pathway's mission is to embrace the individuality of those served, enhance
their opportunities for independence within their homes, work and recreation activities,
and create a richer community in the process (see attached formal Mission Statement).
In addition to Pathway's mission statement, support services are based on a solid
foundation of Core Values. Pathway's staff and board of director's created and adopted
these Core Values to ensure employees are providing support services designed
specifically to the needs, abilities and desires of the individuals served. In addition, all
employees, individuals served and community partners are treated with dignity and
respect. Pathway values effective communication, teamwork and a positive attitude in all
venues of service delivery.
Service Historv
Home Support
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. was fOWlded in 1985 in order to provide homes and
employment opportunities for residents of Fairview Training Center, Oregon State's
Institution for individuals who are developmentally disabled. Pathway opened five
residential (group) homes by 1989, providing services to twenty-five (25) individuals.
Each home provides support services to five (5) individuals who require varying degrees
of support. Many of these individuals are medically fragile, have augmented disabilities
due to aging, and other disabilities including mental illness and/or a physical disability.
Support services include all daily living skills, such as bathing, shaving, toileting,
dressing, food preparatio~ general cleaning, as well as communication, appointments,
and general relationship or social skill building. Pathway ensures all individuals have
access to, and support for, recreation and healthy living.
In January 2009, Pathway received a certificate from the Department of Human Services
Seniors and people with Disabilities Office of Licensing and Quality of Care to provide
Supported Living Program Services in Jackson County. These services will ensure that
people who either desire, or for whom services may be enhanced by, receive the
opportunities to choose their living environment and, ultimately, gain individuality.
Employment Support
Pathway is committed to ensuring supported employment opportunities are available for
individuals served, regardless of the type or severity of their disability.
Pathway's employment services started in 1987, and continue to grow, increasing work
opportunities and earning power of the individuals served. Pathway currently provides
-- r
employment services to eight (8) individuals who work in local businesses, seven (7)
individuals in contracted services (SOU dish room and custodial), and recently added
Jackson County Custodial, creating potentially fifteen (15) more jobs for people with
severe disabilities.
Pathway staff are committed to excellence and are excited about the future for those we
serve.
.. r
9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low, low-moderate
income families, or individuals with special needs?
All individuals targeted in this proposal meet the federal guideline for extremely low
income and are also developmentally disabled.
The project will promote self-.sufficiency by ensuring trained staff follow the individual
plan for support and create an environment of learning and developing relationships
outside of paid staff. In addition, the target population will be encouraged, and receive
comprehensive training for self sufficiency regarding transportation, home maintenance,
employment and recreational opportunities, as well as community connections such as
banking, shopping and medical needs.
Our trained staff have many years of experience providing in-home supports as well as
helping the individual's served with developing and nurturing the multitudes of
relationships that are critical to each day's success.
Trained stall will follow the typical Supported Living Model of Support, teaching
graduated inter/independence while ensuring clientele are safe, healthy and able to
achieve varying levels of independence.
In addition, staff will assist the individual's served with finding the most efficient and
affordable housing available, while meeting their abilities, desires and proximately needs.
10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-income individuals /
individuals with special needs.
Benefits of the Program
All the individuals identified by this project are extremely low income and are diagnosed
with a developmental disability and/or a mental illness. The majority of these individuals
were raised in an institutional setting that did not teach inter-or independence, but rather,
dependence on those around them. The targeted individuals currently reside in
congregate living (residentiaU group home housing) with four (4) other individuals. This
project will ensure the individuals who desire supported living services (apartment I other
housing) receive support and guidance to enhance their abilities as well as creating
increased self-esteem, positive self-worth, a desire to help others and a sense of giving vs
taking.
The identified individuals will be able to reap the benefits that a typical renter has,
including, but certainly not limited to; keeping and decorating their home the way they
would like, inviting friends and family for visits, having an animal to care for, developing
neighborly relationships, watching t.v. shows they like and listening to music they love.
They can dance around their living room and make spaghetti for dinner.
In addition to the above benefits, individuals who move from congregate living to a more
independent arrangement are more apt to feel better about themselves; taking pride in
their homes, appearance, and attitude. People who have more power and control in their
lives are generally happier and more productive.
a) Nt A
b) For proposed projects serving a target population, provide the following
data, including document sources of information for statistics.
Target Population
People who are extremely low income and diagnosed with a developmental disability
and/or a mental illness.
Number of low-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual
basis.
NI A. All the individuals served are categorized as extremely low income.
Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis.
Five per year, up to twenty-five.
Percent low I moderate income.
N/ A Low or Moderate.
-. I
11) Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income
individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely low-income
individuals.
The targeted individuals for this project are categorized as extremely low income.
12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and mod-income housing to be
demolished or converted to another use.
N/A
-- I
13) Project Feasibility
Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues
have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative
capacity to complete the proposed proje~t.
Nt A regarding procurement of property.
Feasibility
a. Pathway has the capacity to proceed with the project as written. PEl's
administrative infrastructure, including Finance, Human Resource and
Administrative staff have the capacity to complete the requirements set forth
in this proposal as evidenced by historical information including:
1. Adherence to federal, state and county regulations and
practices: Licensing, OAR's (Oregon Administrative Rules)
2. Service Contracts: AbilityOne, ORA (Oregon Rehab Assoc)
3. Successful annual fmanciaI audits (Isler)
4. Documented professional training for staff
In addition, the Director of Community Services (supported living), the
Executive Director and many of the staff have vast amounts of experience
working and teaching people with disabilities how to live more independently.
Pathway staff can identify, procure and manage independent living
arrangements that enhance the lives of those we serve.
b. The minimal on..going operating expenses are supported by Pathway's diverse
income sources, such as our Service Contracts and continued contracted work
with Jackson County DD and Brokerage Agents.
c. N/ A
d. N/ A
e. Nt A
f. N/A
g. Nt A
h. Nt A
i. The commitment of project funding from other sources include Jackson
COWlty DD Services and Brokerage Agents; who represent their clientele who
are interested in supported living services.
14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or
significant properties on the environment.
N/A
15) Attach any other statistical data, letter of support, applicable experience, evidence
of financial support from runders, or other material you believe will assist the City
in its review of your proposal.
Attachments included.
16. CDBG Application Checklist (pages 25..26). Attach Forms A, B, & C.
-- I
CITY OF ASHLAND
2005 Proaram Year
CDSG APPLICATION CHECKLIST
In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help
to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDSG funding, the City of Ashland will
need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point
out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a
comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of
proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please
fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it
as part of your proposal application.
A. ADDlicant's Background Yes No N/A
1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X
of government?
2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X
HUO Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)?
3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X
income documentation?
4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X
commitment to a proposed project?
5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X
6. Has the applicant administered a COBG project X
previously?
7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X
reports and accountability to the City as required by
HUD?
B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A
1. Has a location for the project been selected? X
2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X
limits?
3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X
land use laws?
4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X
partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit
reauired?
5. Have these approvals been obtained? X
6. Does the project comply with current building code X
reQuirements?
7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X
requirements?
25
-- I
c. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A
1. Is the project located in the 1 OO-year floodplain? X
2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X
3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X
on the project site?
4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X
5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X
1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify.
6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X
near the railroad?
7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X
around flammable storage tank?
8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X
50 years or older?
9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X
review upon receiving a CDBG award?
D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A
1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X
cost?
2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X
reQuirements?
3. Will the project trigger BOLl wage requirements? X
4. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City X
awarded grants or contracts?
E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A
1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X
2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X
3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X
F. Property Data Yes No N/A
1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X
title?
2. Are taxes on the property current? X
3. Is insurance current? X
4. What is the current debt against the property? X
5. What is the current use of the property? X
6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X
If yes, what is the assessed value of the property?
26
Mission Statement
Serving people with disabilities;
Sharing a vision of justice, respect, and community;
Providing support and services that enhance the quality of life;
Empowering people to experience dignity, purpose, and meaning; and
Committing to professional standards of excellence.
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. (PEl)
Board of Directors/Board Officers/Corporate Officers 1/1/09
Board Chairperson and Director
Mr. Jon Iverson
220 Laurel Street
Medford, OR 97501 (Work Phone: 772~3477) (Home Phone: 772~1762)
Board Vice Chairperson and Director
Mr. Michael Hancock
Director, Human Resources
Asante Health System
2635 Siskiyou Blvd.
Medford, OR 97504 (Work Phone: 789-4281) (Cell Phone: 301-9673)
Director and Corporate Secretary
Ms. Krista Bolf
Principal Broker, Coldwell Banker/Pro West Realty
190 Oak Street
Ashland, OR 97520 (Work Phone: 482~5590) (Cell Phone: 944-2172)
Director and Corporate Treasurer
Mr. Brad Webster
VP/Manager, South Valley Bank & Trust
891 O'Hare Parkway
Medford, OR 97504 (Work Phone: 774~1453) (Cell Phone: 601-2650)
Director
Ms. Sandra H. Crews
Director, Special Education Services
Southern Oregon Education Service District
5465 South Pacific Hwy.
Phoenix, OR 97535 (Work Phone: 776-8555) (Home Phone: 779-9216)
President & CEO
Ms. Becky Simpson
Pathway Enterprises, Inc.
655 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520 (Work Phone: 488-1536) (Cell Phone: 601-2830)
Vice President & Director of Finance
Pathway Enterprises, Inc.
Mr. Robert Penney
655 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520 (Work Phone: 4881536) (Cell Phone: 944-0798)
Form A..1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
Housing Proposa s
," ',; >~:A(:tivity
~i*~'.,F:']~~l'Ii,.,g:& '
D(iyelopme'ot
Option
Site Acquisition
Plan Development
Pre-application
Land Use Approval
Construction Plans
Final Bids
Contractor Selection
Building Permits
~r.nt;applicatioi1s
local
state
federal
Non-government
other
,LqahApplications
Construction loan
Permanent
C()r.e.j'tr:ucti(jnPhase
Construction
Certificate of Occupancy
Start Date
Completion Date
;
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
,
"
,,; "
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
,
,
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project
schedule
27
..' I
Form A.2
To be completed for Social Service Proposals
Social Services Pro 08al8
-,).\~t~\ii Start Date ~()rylletionDate
HireP.rsQnn.el -4/1$/09' 6/t/Q9' .-
Train Personnel 5/1/09 5/31/09
Initiate Svs/ Assessments 5/15/09 6/1/09
Housin 0 tions Identified 5/15/09 11/1/09
5 Individuals Transitioned 8/1/09 11/1/09
social services providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for
their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding,
initiation of direct client services, etc)
28
.. I
Form B-1
To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals
Uses of Funding
H P
ouslng roposa s
Total Cost COSG Request Other Source(s)
ACQuisition Costs
Land
Improvements
Liens and other Taxes
Closing costs
Off-Site costs
Other
SUBTOTAL N/A N/A N/A
DevelQpmentCosts .
Land Use Approvals
Building Permits/fees
(Include Engineering and
Community Development Fees)
System Development Charges
(SDes) -
Relocation Costs
Environmental Report I Lead
Based Paint Clearance
Soils Report
Survey
Marketing
Insurance
Other
Fees..
Architectural/Engineering
Legall Accounting
Appraisals
Lender fees
Construction Loan
Permanent Loan
Tax Credit Fees
Developer Fee
Consultant Fee
Other
TOTAL N/A N/A N/A
29
- I
Form B-2
To be completed for Social Service Proposals
S . IS P
octa ervlce roposa s
Total Cost COBG Request Other Source(s)
DirectClien~Services
.. . .... ': . . .
Wages (of personal 105,727 28,400 77,327
providing direct client Pathway Enterprises
services)
Materials/Supplies 1,000 0 1,000
Marketing/Outreach 1,600 1,600 0
Program Administration 14% COBG Funds
Includes overhead and general are not
staffing necessary to administer the available for
program (accounting, management.
grant administration) but that does program
not provide direct benefits to the
client. administration
Total Project Cost 108,327 + 30,000 87,327
admin (max for Social Svs)
30
.. I
Form C
SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET
Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to
sustain the operations of the program(s).
Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment
(awarded with Date.
conditions)
Federal Grants
State Grants
Local Grants CDBG-
30,000
Non Governmental
Grants
Donations/Gifts
Applicant Pathway- Per Award
Contribution 87,327
Program Income JCDD- Per Transition
12,500
Loans
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
TOTAL. 87,327 42,500
Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as
related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources
please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates.
Pathway will ensure all five (5) individuals transitioning from a group home to supported living
(alternative home) will have the support needed for success, matching COSG Grant and
augmenting Jackson County D054 monies identified for service delivery.
31
Form 0
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential
conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block
Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants:
ORGANIZATION NAME: _Pathway Enterprises, Inc.
Organization is: 1. Corporation ( )
2. Non-Profit 501C3 (x)
3. Partnership ( )
4. Sole Owner ( )
5. Association ( )
6. Other ()
DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS
If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet.
1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal
interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed.
Name, Job Title and City Department
N/A
2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland
having a potentialltfinancial interest" in the organization or project.
NamelTitle
N/A
3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking COBG funding
Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet)
1 Attached
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
additional
If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details
regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative.
32
October 17, 2008
City of Ashland
Community Development Block Grant
Letter of Support
To Whom It May Concern:
Pathway Enterprises has the capacity to administer and complete the
grant as written; providing three additional staff to ensure the individuals
served have the opportunities to move from residential (supported
housing) to supported apartments (or other housing options). This
transition will create the opportunity for the individuals involved to exercise
more choice and control over their lives and experience the freedom of
living where and with whom they choose-something that most of us take.
for granted.
Pathway's services are an integral part of Ashland's diverse community,
assisting people with disabilities to engage in the same housing,
employment and activity options that enrich all of our lives.
Thank you for considering this application. Please call me directly if you
have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Roger Hassenpflug
President and CEO
-. I
Department of Health
and Human Services
Developmental DisabilitIes
Tony Mendenhall. 8.S.
Program Manager
300 West Main
Medford, Oregon
Phone: 541 774~8205
Fax: 541 714~7978
mendeotl@jacksoncounty.org
January 27,2009
To whom it may concern:
It is my pleasure to write this letter in support of Pathway Enterprises Inc. (PEl) on
behalf of Jackson County Health and Human Services, Developmental Disabilities
Program. As you may know, PEl has been a long-time provider of residential services
for people with developmental disabilities in the Ashland community. They are a
community organization in every sense of the word in that they are managed locally
with a Board of Directors further consisting of local, longtime residents of Ashland and
the Rogue Valley.
Currently, PEl is supporting 10 moderate to significantly impaired individuals within
two five-bed group homes in Ashland. Many of those persons they serve had
previously resided within the Fairview Training Center in Salem. In the process of
closing Fairview in the 1990s, this organization answered the call and accepted the
responsibility to return people to live in their own communities.
Consistent with current thinking in the community of people with disabilities, the
recently hired Executive Director and the Board of Directors of PEl have committed to
support these individuals in the least restrictive and most respectful method as possible.
Throughout Jackson County, we have seen other programs successfully "step down"
individuals in this manner, moving them from "group Homes" to living in their own
homes with supports and expect PEl's results to be much the same.
-. I
In preparing this letter of support for PEl, I have done some research. The records that
we maintain on those individuals served by our department indicate that we have only
66 individuals currently residing within Ashland. Of the 66 people we serve in
Ashland, 57 are adults, while only 9 are children under 18. Of the 57 adults who
currently live in Ashland, over 80% of these folks are also employed in the Ashland
community, 28 live in residential group homes and 3 live in foster care. Just for
information, we are currently supporting 800 people in Jackson County as a whole and
expect this number to increase by nearly 10% over the next biennium.
In discussion with the Executive Director at PEl, funding from the community Block
grant is being requested for the purposes of recruiting, hiring and training the staff to
support people living in the community. Once hired, these staff will not immediately
be funded through Medicaid and State General Fund, however long-term funding is
required to be individual~zed based on a person's support needs and as the residents
convert t the new service the funding will catch up.
I respectfully request that you closely review and consider this request for funding for
PEl and help us strengthen the support system for people that want to live in their own
community.
Sincerely,
Tony Mendenhall
... r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
First Reading of two separate Ordinances, one Amending the Sign Code Chapter
(18.96), and one amending the Site Design Review Chapter (18.72.030) of the
Ashland Land Use Code
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
April 7, 2009
Community Develo ment
Legal
Martha Benne
Brandon Goldman
goldmanb@ashland.or. us
Bill Molnar
45 min.
Questions:
Should the City Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Sign Code Chapter of
the Ashland Municipal Code (18.96)?
Should the City Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review
Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on
buildings listed as contributing historic resources within a Historic District?
Recommendations:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendments as
proposed. The Planning Commission also recommends that the sign ordinance be reviewed again two
years after any proposed changes are implemented.
Background:
In July 2008, the Mayor appointed an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate concerns relating to
signage limitations, downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial
use. The Task Force included representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning, Historic
and Public Arts Commission, Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large. The
group was asked to make recommendations to address several concerns. The Task Force met
throughout July and August to evaluate options for various remedies and ordinance changes. Public
testimony was taken at each meeting to provide the Task Force with input from merchants who were
specifically impacted by compliance activities then being conducted by the Community Development
Department.
The City Council has already passed an Ordinance that eliminated the downtown employee parking
ban. The issues relating to the of use of public property, such as commercial use of sidewalks along a
business frontage, will be addressed outside of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance through modifications
to other chapters of the Ashland Municipal code including Chapter 6, Business Licenses and
Regulations, and Chapter 13, regulating the use of the Public Rights of Way.
The potential changes to the Sign Code, as attached, have been largely based on the discussion by the
Downtown Task Force and Planning Commission, in an effort to add clarification to the existing code
and provide new opportunities for signage throughout the City.
The development of the proposed Sign Code and Site Design Review ordinance amendments included
numerous public meetings.
· Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 24,2009, continued from February 10th, 2009.
Page 1 of 5
~A~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
· Planning Commission Study Sessions: December 18,2008, January 13, and January 27,2009
. Historic Commission Review: February 4, 2009
. City Council Update: September 2008
. Downtown Task Force Review: five meetings between July and August 2008.
Minutes from each of these meetings are attached as Exhibit I.
Proposed changes to the sign code include:
. Definition Changes
. Multiple Frontage Provisions (new sign allowance)
. Prohibition of Vehicle Sign in public right of ways
. Construction and Real Estate Signs (new sign allowance)
. String Lighting Provisions
. Exempt Incidental Signs (new sign allowance)
· Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs (new sign allowance)
. Portable Wind Sign Allowances (new sign allowance)
. 3-D signs in Historic Districts, 3cu.ft. (new sign allowance)
. 3-D signs outside Historic Districts, 20 cU.ft. (new sign allowance)
. Public Art exempted from Sign Code
Proposed changes to the Site Design and Use Standards include:
· Public Art installed on contributing historic structures to be subject to the Site Design Review
process (18.72) under the Land Use Code.
The Staff Report dated February 10, 2009 (Exhibit C), and the two associated addendums (Exhibits D
& E), more fully describe each of the proposed ordinance amendments and their review history. The
Staff Report outlines a number of options that were originally presented to the Planning Commission
for consideration. The final draft of the proposed ordinances presented to the City Council at this time
incorporates each of the preferred alternatives as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff.
The following items were major topics of discussion before the Planning Commission:
Public Art
The Planning Commission and Historic Commission recommended that Public Art should no
longer be subject to the provisions of the Sign Code. When Public Art is proposed to be
installed on historic buildings it was recommended that it undergo a Site Review process with
review by the Historic and Planning Commission to ensure that the historic integrity of the
building is retained. A separate ordinance amending the Site Design and Use Standards
(Chapter 18.72.030) concerning Public Art on Historic Structures is also presented for the
Council's consideration (Exhibit B).
Three Dimensional Signs
The new allowance for 3-D signs was an area of considerable discussion by the Downtown
Task Force and the Planning Commission. The Public Arts Commission provided a letter
(Exhibit H) recommending against the new allowances for 3-D signs, and representatives of the
Public Arts Commission presented their recommendations before the Planning Commission.
Ultimately the Planning Commission's recommendation is in favor of three cubic foot 3-D
Page 2 of 5
~A~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
signs in Historic District, and 20 cubic foot signs in other commercial areas. The proposed
ordinance amendments include limitations on placement, materials, and maximum dimensions.
By limiting the materials allowable to durable materials, specifically excluding plastic, the
Planning Commission decided that allowing such 3-D signs could provide new opportunities
for unique signs that contribute to Ashland's character.
Exempt 'Incidental' Signs
The Downtown Task Force recommended amending 18.96.030(H) to increase the number of
exempt signs from two to three in the downtown area. They also recommended that the
allowable area for the additional proposed sign be increased by 3 square feet for increased
flexibility, and specifically in consideration of restaurant needs for '"menu" signs. If approved
the total area of small incidental signs afforded to businesses will increase from 4 square feet to
7 square feet.
Portable Signs
The proposed amendments to the sign code would allow sandwich boards, pedestal signs, and
small wind signs when located on private property. These are each prohibited by the current
ordinance. The size, materials, and location of such signs would be limited by the proposed
ordinance amendment. The area of such portable signs would also be deducted from the area
permitted for exempt incidental signs. It is important to note. than any portable sign would have
to be located on private property, and as such these ordinance amendments are not intended to
allow the location of sandwich boards on the public sidewalk.
Construction Signs
The Planning Commission discussed construction signs at length during the January 2ih, 2009
Study Session. Of concern was that the existing limitation on construction signs is currently
one 6 square foot sign in residential zones, and one 12 square foot sign in commercial zones,
whereas on active construction sites contractors often install larger signs, or a number of small
signs, to advertise the various entities involved in the project. To make allowances for this
common practice, the Planning Commission determined that a cumulative area of 16 square feet
in residential zones, and 32 square feet in commercial zones should be allowed. Staff presented
an option that such construction signs could be consolidated into a single sign on a property to
limit visual clutter. The Planning Commission recommended that up to 4 signs, with an
aggregate area not exceeding the area limitations, be permitted on a given property.
Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area
The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before the City
Council by Brent Thompson on September 2nd, 2008. Concerns raised related to properties with
business frontages on more than two streets, or businesses whose sole frontage is on a third or
fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be addressed in proposed amendments
by forwarding implementing language for consideration.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow additional signs by calculating the allowable
additional sign area for the third, and subsequent, business frontages to be one sq.ft. of sign area
for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This allocation is 12 the area allowance permitted
for the primary or secondary frontages under the current code. Further this provision also
establishes that business frontages utilizing this new sign allowance shall comply with specific
Page 3 of 5
!'A1I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
criteria from the City's Site Design and Use Standards providing for an attractive and functional
pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the street, and
providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk.
Temporary Window Signs
Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone, when such signs
do not obscure more than twenty percent of the window area, and are maintained for a period
not exceeding seven days are exempt from the sign code. Signs which remain longer than
seven days are considered permanent and must comply with the provisions of the Ashland Sign
Code (18.96.30(1)). The currently proposed ordinance maintains this 7 day period unchanged.
Given the nature of holiday signs painted on windows, business signs advertising seasonal
sales, real estate listings, and event posters advertising concerts or performances, which all fall
into this category, Staff wanted to introduce the extension of this time period for consideration
by Council. Extending the time period (from 7 days to 30 days or longer) may make
allowances for such signs as noted above, but it may also introduce opportunities for abuse in
that the potential would exist for revolving permanent signs that would essentially continuously
obscure of 20% of the window area. Although this item was also introduced at the Planning
Commission there was not much discussion on whether to extend the time period from 7 days to
30 days or more. Should the Council wish to extend the period it would be a relatively minor
change that could be directed to occur between First Reading and Second Reading of the
Ordinance.
The sign code is conlprehensive and covers a broad range of situations, zoning designations, and
overlays. The Planning Department provides consultation to assist in the application of the sign code
provisions to a particular site or business. Once the property is identified (zoning, amount of street
frontage, and existing sign areas) it is a relatively silnple formula based code that provides for the type,
area, and location of signs without regard to content. The past difficulties have not typically involved
the complexity of the Ordinance, but rather applicants propose signs that are prohibited or are larger
than otherwise allowed. In these cases it is not the complexity of the code in question, but its
underlYing purpose. These changes aim to provide greater clarity, and offer new opportunities for
signage for business identification, non-commercial speech, and disselnination of public infomlation
while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character.
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the
transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal point, revered throughout the State and
beyond. The currently proposed amendments continue the evolution of the City's sign code to reflect
community interests.
Related City Policies:
The criteria for legislative amendments to the land use ordinance are as follows:
18.108.170.A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use
Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive
plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a
legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
Page 4 of 5
!'A~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
The Council may conduct the Public Hearing and either approve the First Reading of the ordinances as
proposed, or approve the First Reading of the ordinances with specific modifications, or direct Staff to
make changes and bring the ordinances back for First Reading.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Sign Code
Chapter (18.96), and schedule second reading of the Ordinance.
Move to approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review Chapter of the
Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed as
contributing historic resources within a Historic District and schedule second reading of the Ordinance.
Attachments:
I Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J:
I Item
An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 18.96 of the
Ashland Municipal Code
An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 18.72.030 of
the Ashland Municipal Code
Staff Report
Planning Commission Communication addendum
Planning Commission Communication addendum
Planning Commission Study Session Communication
Downtown Task Force Summary Report
Public Arts Commission Memo
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes
Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes
Historic Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
City Council Meeting Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #5 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #4 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #3 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #2 Minutes
Downtown Task Force Meeting #1 Minutes
Submitted Letters
Public Arts Commission Letter
Adam Stallsworth, Oregon Department of Transportation
Steve Cole, Sound Peace
Linda von Hanneken-Martin, W olfPacks.com
Dave Alexander
Art Bullock
Matt Frey
Brent Thompson
Page 5 of5
I Date I Pages
4/7 /2009 1-15
4/7 /2009 16-18
2/1 0/2009 19- 27
2/24/2009 28-31
2/1 0/2009 32-33
12/18/2008 34-35
8/21/2008 36-40
11/2008 41-43
2/24/2009 44-46
2/1 0/2009 47-53
2/4/2009 54-56
1/27/2009 57 -60
1/13/2009 61-67
9/2/2008 68- 71
8/11/2008 72- 7 5
8/4/2008 76-78
7/28/2008 79-82
7/21/2008 83-86
7/14/2008 87 -90
91
92
93
94
95
96--97
98-100
101-102
!'A~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
SIGN REGULATIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.96) CONCERNING RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE BY THE 2008 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE'
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically
enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the
foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter
specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities_ City of
Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiqhters. Local 1660. Beaverton ShOD 20 Or.
App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS the Mayor of the City of Ashland formed a Downtown Task Force to make
recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City Council
concerning inter alia the appropriate amount of signage in the commercial downtown
overlay district, and other areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code at a duly advertised public
hearing on February 10, 2009 and following deliberations recommended approval of the
amendments, with modifications, to the City Council on February 24, 2009. and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public
hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 7, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to
protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the
City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed,
that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are
consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported
by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page ] of] 5
1
Exhibit A
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by this reference.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.96.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Definitions Related to Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.020 Definitions Relating to Signs.
1. Alteration
Any change excluding content, and including but not limited to the size, shape,
method of illumination, position, location, materials, construction, or supporting
structure of a sign.
2 _ Area
The area included ~Nithin the outer dimensions of a sign.
The entire area within circles. trianoles or rectanales which enclose the
extreme Um its of letterino. loao. trademark. or other araphic representation.
tooether with any frame or structural trim formina an intearal part of the
display used to differentiate the sion from the backaround aaainst which it is
placed. In the case of a multi-faced sign, the area of each face shall be included in
determining sign area, excepting double-faced signs placed no more than 24 inches
back-to-back.
3. Awninq
A temporary or movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building
and composed of non-rigid materials except for the supporting framework.
4. Buildinq Face of Wall
All window and wall area of a building in one plane or elevation.
5. Bulletin Board or Reader Board
A sign of a permanent nature, but which accommodates changeable copy_
6. Business
A commercial or industrial enterprise.
7. Business Frontaqe
A lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business
or enterprise, and having an a pedestrian entrance/exit open to the general public
durina all business hours.
8. Business Premises
A parcel of property or that portion thereof occupied by one tenant.
9. Canopy
A non-movable roof-like structure attached to a building.
10. Construction sion
A temporary sian erected on the premises where construction is takina place
durina the period of construction. indicatino the names individuals or firms
havina a role or interest with respect to the structure or proiect.
~. 11. Direct Illumination
A source of illumination on the surface of a sign or from within a sign.
-t4-:-12.Election
The time designated by law for voter to cast ballots for candidates and measures.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 2 of 15
Exhibit A
2
~ 13. Flashinq Siqn
A sign incorporating intermittent electrical impulses to a source of illumination or
revolving or moving in a manner which creates the illusion of flashing, or which
changes color or intensity of illumination. This definition is to include electronic time,
date and temperature signs.
13. FrontaQe
^ single ~J:all surface of a building facing a given direction.
14. Ground Siqn
A sign erected on a free-standing frame, mast or pole and not attached to any
building. Also known as a "free-standing sign".
15. Indirect Illumination
A source of illumination directed toward a sign so that the beam of light falls upon
the exterior surface of the sign.
16. IlIeoal Sion
A sign which is erected in violation of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96).
17. Marquee Sion
A sign which is painted on, attached to, or supported by a marquee, awning or
canopy.
18. Marquee
A non-movable roof-like structure which is self-draining.
19. Non-conforminq Siqn
An existing sign, lawful at the time of enactment of this Ordinance, which does not
conform to the requirements of this Code.
20. Proiectinq Siqns
Signs other than wall signs, which are attached to and project from a structure or
building face, usually perpendicular to the building face.
21. Portable SiQn
A permitted siQn not permanentlv attached to the Qround or other permanent
structure includinQ sandwich boards, pedestal siQns, 'A' Frame siQns, flaQs,
and wind siQns (not includinQ flaQs of national, state or city Qovernments).
22. Public Art
Public Art defined, approved. and installed in accordance with section 2.17 of
the Ashland Municipal Code shall not be reQulated as a siQn per the
provisions of this Chapter.
2-t-:- 23. Roof Siqn
Any sign erected upon, against, or directly above a roof or top of or above the
parapet of a building.
22:-24. Shoppinq Center or Business Complex
Any business or group of businesses which are in a building or group of buildings,
on one or more lots which are contiguous or which are separated by a public right-
of-way or a privately owned flag drive used for access and not greater than 35 feet in
width, which are constructed and/or managed as a single entity, and share
ownership and/or function.
23. 25.Sion
Any identification, description, illustration, symbol or device which is placed or
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 3 of 15
Exhibit A
3
affixed directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or land, Interior illuminated
panels, fascia strips, bands, columns, or other interior illuminated decorative
features located on or off a structure, visible from the public right-of-way, and with or
without lettering or graphics shall also be considered a sign and included in the
overall sign area of the site. Public Art shall not be considered a sian.
24. 26. Sian. Public
A sign erected by a public officer or employee in the performance of a public duty
which shall include, but not be limited to, motorist informational signs and warning
lights.
2&:- 27. Street Frontaqe
The lineal dimension in feet that the property upon which a structure is built abuts a
public street or streets.
28. Real Estate SiQn
A sian pertainina to the sale or lease of the premises. or portion of the
premises. on which the siQn is located
29. Replacement Sian
A chanae in the size or materials of a sian in a location where a perm itted siQn
had previously existed prior to the proposed installation
26. 30. Temporary Siqn
A sign which is not permanently affixed. All devices such as banners, pennants,
flags, (not including flags of national, state or city governments), searchlights,
sand~Nich boards, sido\\'alk signs, curb signs, balloons or other air or gas-filled
balloons.
31. Three-Dimensional SiQn
A siQn which has a depth or relief on its surface areater than six inches
exclusive of the supportinQ siQn structure and not to include proiectina wall
siQns.
32. Vehicle SiQn
A sian mounted on a vehicle. bicycle. trailer or boat. or fixed or attached to a
device for the purpose of transportinQ from site-to-site.
2+.33. Wall Graphics
Including but not limited to any mosaic, mural or painting or graphic art technique or
combination or grouping of mosaics, murals, or paintings or graphic art techniques
applied, implanted or placed directly onto a wall or fence.
2&34. Wall Sian
A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building with the face in a parallel
plane of the building wall.
29:-35. Wind Sian or Device
Any sign or device in the nature of banners, flags, balloons, or other objects
fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subject to pressures by wind or
breeze.
SECTION 3. Chapter 18.96.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Exempted Signs]- is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 4 of 15
Exhibit A
4
SECTION 18.96.030 Exempted Signs.
The following signs and devices shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter
except for 18.96.040 and18.96.140
A. Informational signs placed by the City of Ashland, or by the State or Oregon in the
publicly owned right-of-way. Collective identification or directory sians placed by
the City of Ashland showina the types and locations of various civic.
business. recreation. historic interest areas. or other similar uses. when such
sians are located on publically owned riaht-of-way or on City of Ashland
pro pe rty .
B. Memorial tablets, cornerstones, or similar plaques not exceeding six square feet in
size.
C. Flags of national, state or local governments.
D. Signs within a building provided they are not visible to persons outside the building.
E. Temporary signs not exceeding four square feet, provided the signs are erected no
more than 45 days prior to and removed within seven days following an election.
(Ord 2844; S 1 1999)
F. Temporary, non-illuminated real estate (not more than ono per tax lot) 9f
construction signs not exceeding six square feet in residential areas or twelve
square feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed
within fifteen days from the sale, lease or rental of the property or ~Nithin seven
days of completion of the project. Such sians shall be limited to one sian per
lot. Freestandina temporary real estate sians shall be no areater than five
feet above arade.
G. Temporary non-illuminated construction sians on a lot with an aaareaate area
not exceedina sixteen (16) sauare feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32)
sauare feet in commercial and industrial areas. provided said sians are
removed within seven days of completion of the proiect. Such sians shall be
limited to no more than four sians per lot. Freestandina temporary
construction sians shall be no areater than five feet above arade.
!::l-Small incidental signs provided said signs do not exceed two square feet in area per
sign, not more than two in number on any parcel or two per street business
frontage, whichever is greater. Within the Downtown Desian Standards Zone.
three incidental sians with a total area of seven SQuare feet. provided no
sinale incidental sian exceeds three sauare feet in area. are allowable per
business frontaae.
J..k L- Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone,
when such signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of such window area, and
are maintained for a period not exceeding seven days. Signs which remain longer
than seven days will be considered permanent and must comply with the provisions
of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96).
h ~Any sign which is not visible to motorists or pedestrians on any public highway,
sidewalk, street or alley.
J. ~Strings of Lights. Strings of incandescent lights in non-residential zones where
the lights do not exceed 5 watts per bulb, the bulbs are placed no closer than 6"
apart and do not flash or blink in any way. Strings of lights in residential zones are
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 5 of 15
Exhibit A
5
not regulated.
K. b..- Temporary non-illuminated signs not exceeding 16 square feet for charitable
fundraising events placed by non-profit and charitable organizations. Such signs
shall not be placed more than seven days prior to the event and must be removed
within two days following the event. No more than two such events may be
advertised in this manner per lot per year.
All of the foregoing exempted signs shall be subject to the other regulations
contained in this Chapter 18.96 relative to the size, lighting or spacing of such sign.
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.96.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Prohibited Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.040 Prohibited Signs.
A. No sign, unless exempted or allowed pursuant to this Chapter, shall be permitted
except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030.
B. No movable sign, temporary sign or bench sign shall be permitted except as may be
provided in Section 18.96.030.
C. No wind sign, device, or captive balloon shall be permitted except as may be
provided in Section 18.96.030 and 18.96.080(8)6
D. No flashing signs shall be permitted.
E. No sign shall have or consist of any moving, rotating, or otherwise animated part.
F. No three-dimensional statue, caricature or representation of persons, animals or
merchandise shall be used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure except as
may be provided in Sections 18.96.080(8)5. and 18.96.090(8)4
G. No public address system or sound devices shall be used in conjunction with any
sign or advertising device.
H. No roof signs or signs which project above the roof shall be permitted.
I. No exposed sources of illumination shall be permitted on any sign, or for the
decoration of any building, including, but not limited to, neon or fluorescent tubing
and flashing incandescent bulbs, except when the source of illumination is within a
building, and at least ten (10) feet from a window which allows visibility from the
public right-of-way, or when a sign is internally illuminated or the source of light is
fully shielded from the public view.
J. No signs which use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects or are internally
illuminated in the Historic District, as identified in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
or in any residential districts shall be permitted.
K. No bulletin boards or signs with changeable copy shall be permitted, except as
allowed in Section 18.96.060(0)_
L. No wall graphics shall be permitted.
M. No unofficial sign which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles an official
traffic sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which
hides from view any official traffic sign or signal shall be permitted.
N. Vehicle siQns used as static displays such that the primary purpose of the
vehicle is the display of the sian. placed or parked ~Nhoro 'Jisiblo from off
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 6 of ] 5
Exhibit A
6
promises or on the public riaht-of-way for a continuous period of 2 days or
more. Vehicles and eQuipment reaularly used in the conduct of the business
such as delivery vehicles. construction vehicles. fleet vehicles. or similar
uses. shall not be subiected to this prohibition.
SECTION 5. Chapter 18.96.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Commercial Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D)] is hereby amended to
read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D).
Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following
regulations:
A. Special Provisions.
1. FrontaQe.
The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall
be placed only upon such business frontage. and no building shall be credited
\4:ith more than t\vo business frontagos.
2. AQQreqate number of siQns.
The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each
business frontage (a frontage lJ:ith an entrance/oxit opon to the general
public).
3. Material.
No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay Distric~ shall use plastic as part of
the exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aqqreqate area of siqns.
The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street
frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of
street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real estate and
construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Permitted.
1. Wall Signs.
a. Number.
Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one
sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common
space or suite.
b. Area.
Total sign area shall not bo moro than one square foot of sign area for
one linoal foot of legal businoss frontago This aroa shall not exceod
sixty squaro foet.
Buildinas with two or fewer business frontaaes shall be permitted one
SQuare foot of sian area for each lineal foot of business frontaae. For
the third and subseQuent business frontaaes on a sinale buildina. the
business shall be permitted one sauare foot of sian area for every two
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 7 of 15
Exhibit A
7
lineal feet of business frontaae. The maximum sion area on any sinale
business frontaoe shall not exceed sixty (60)sQuare feet.
Business frontaoes of three or more, on a sinole buildina, shall comply
with the followina criteria established within the City's Site Desion and
Use Standards:
i. A pedestrian entrance desianed to be attractive and functional, and
open to the public durina all business hours
ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway
connected to a public sidewalk.
c. Proiection.
Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches two feet from the face of
the building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign
is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may only
project four inches.
d. Extension above roof line.
Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number.
One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count one street
frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of
street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond
any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on
corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of
Section 18.96.060(F).
d. Heioht.
No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Marquee or Awning Signs.
a. Number.
A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu
of wall signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up
by a wall sign.
c. Proiection.
Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above
the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee.
d. Heiqht.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 8 of 15
Exhibit A
8
Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if placed below the
marquee.
e. Clearance above orade.
The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than
seven feet, six inches above grade.
f. Sions painted on a marquee.
Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall signs provided the signs
do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs.
4. Projection Signs.
a. Number.
One sign shall be permitted for each business or group of businesses
occupying a single common space or suite in lieu of a wall sign.
b. Area.
Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign shall not exceed an
area of one square foot for each two feet of lineal business frontage that is
not already utilized by a wall sign. The maximum area of any projecting sign
shall be 15 square feet.
c. Proiection.
Signs may project from the face of the building to which they are attached a
maximum of two feet if located eight feet above grade, or three feet if located
nine feet above grade or more.
d. Heioht and extension above roof line.
Signs shall not extend above the roofline, eave or parapet wall of the building
to which they are attached, or be lower than eight feet above grade.
e. Limitation on placement.
No projecting sign shall be placed on any frontage on an arterial street as
designated in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
5. Three-Dimensional SiQns.
a. Number.
One three-dimensional siQn shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one
three SQuare foot incidental siQn otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H.
b. Surface Area.
Flat surfaces in excess of two sQuare feet shall count toward the total
aaQreaate siQn area per 18.96.080(Al4.
c. Placement.
The three-dimensional siQn shall be located so that no siQn or portion
thereof is within a public pedestrian easement or extends beyond any
property line of the premises on which such siQn is located into the
public riQht-of-wav unless the siQn is attached to the face of the buildinQ
and located eiaht feet above arade. or the sian is attached to a marauee
with the lowest portion of the siQn not less than seven feet. six inches
above Qrade not proiectina beyond. or above. the face of the marQuee.
d. Dimensions.
No three-dimensional siQn shall have a heiQht. width. or depth in
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 9 of 15
Exhibit A
9
excess of three feet.
e. Volume.
The volume of the three-dimensional sian shall be calculated as the
entire volume within a rectanQular cube enclosinQ the extreme limits of
all parts of the siQn and shall not exceed three (3) cubic feet. For the
purposes of calculatina volume the minimum dimension for heiQht.
width. or depth shall be considered one foot.
f. Materials
The three-dimensional siQns shall be constructed of metal. wood.
bronze. concrete. stone. alass. clav. fiberQlass. or other durable
material. all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective alare.
Three dimensional siQns shall not be constructed of plastic. Three
dimensional sians shall not be internallv illuminated or contain any
electrical component.
6 Portable Business Sians
a. Number
One portable business siQn. limited to sandwich boards. pedestal sians.
lA' frame siQns. flaQs. and wind sians. shall be allowed on each lot
exceptina that buildinas. businesses. shoppina centers. and business
complexes with permanent around sians shall not be permitted to have
portable sians.
b. Area.
SiQn area shall be deducted from the aaareaate sian allowed for exempt
incidental sians established in 18.96.030(H). Sians shall not exceed an
area of four (4) sauare feet per face includina any border or trim. and
there shall be no more than two (2) faces.
c. Heiaht.
Sandwich board siQns and lA' frame sians shall not extend more than
three (3) feet above the around on which it is placed. Pedestal sians
shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the around on which it is
placed. A freestandinQ wind sian shall not extend more than five (5) feet
above the around on which it is placed.
d. Placement.
SiQns shall be placed so that no sian or portion thereof shall extend
beyond any property line of the premises on which such sian is located.
Portable siQns shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance
and shall not be placed on public riaht-of-wav. No portable business
sian shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian
inaress and earess as reQulated within the Ashland Municipal Code.
e. General Lim itations
Sians shall be anchored. supported. or desiQned as to prevent tippina
over. which reasonablv prevents the possibilitv of siQns becomina
hazards to public health and safety. Sians shall not be constructed of
plastic. illuminated or contain any electrical component. No obiects
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page ] 0 of ] 5
Exhibit A
10
shall be attached to a portable siQn such as but not limited to balloons.
banners. merchandise. and electrical devices. Portable business sians
shall be removed at the daily close of business. These siQns are
prohibited while the business is closed.
SECTION 6. Chapter 18.96.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts] is hereby amended
to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Em ployment Districts.
Signs in commercial, industrial and employment districts, excepting the Downtown-
Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the
following regulations:
A. Special Provisions.
1. Frontaqe.
The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall
be placed only upon such business frontage. and no building shall be credited
...:ith more than two business frontages.
2. Aqqreqate number of siqns.
The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each
business frontage.
3. AQQreqate area of siQns.
The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street
frontage, shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and
temporary real estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Permitted.
1. Wall Signs.
a. Number.
Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one
sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common
space or suite.
b. Area.
Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for
one lineal foot of legal business frontage This area shall not exceed
sixty square feet.
Buildinas with two or fewer business frontaQes shall be permitted one
SQuare foot of sian area for each lineal foot of business frontaae. For
the third and subseQuent business frontaaes on a sinale buildina. the
business shall be permitted one SQuare foot of sian area for every two
lineal feet of business frontaae. The maximum sian area on any sinale
business frontaae shall not exceed sixty (60)sQuare feet.
Business frontaaes of three or more. on a sinale buildina. shall comply
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 11 of 15
Exhibit A
11
with the followina criteria established within the City's Site Desian and
Use Standards:
i. A pedestrian entrance desianed to be attractive and functional. and
open to the public durina all business hours
ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway
connected to a public sidewalk.
c. Proiection.
Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a
maximum of eighteen inches two feet from the face of the building to which
they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet
above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet can only project four inches.
d. Extension above roof line.
Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number.
One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty
lineal feet. Corner lots can count both street frontages in determining the
lineal feet of the street frontage but only one ground sign is permitted on
corner lots. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of
street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond
any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on
corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of
Section 18.96.060(F).
d. Heiqht.
No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Awning or Marquee Signs.
a. Number.
Two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a
wall sign.
c. Proiection.
Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above
or below the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the
marquee.
d. Heiqht.
Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the
marquee.
e. Clearance above qrade.
The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 12 of 15
Exhibit A
12
seven feet, six inches above grade.
f. SiQns painted on a marquee.
Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall sign provided the signs
do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs.
4. Three-Dimensional Sians.
a. Number.
One three-dimensional sian shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontaae in excess of 50 lineal feet. This is in addition to the lim itations
established in this section on number of wall. around. awnina or
marQuee sians.
b. Surface Area.
Flat surfaces in excess of two SQuare feet shall count toward the total
aaareaate sian area per 18.96.080CA)4.
c. Placement.
The three-dimensional sian shall be located a minimum of ten feet from
a property line and no sian or portion thereof shall be located within a
public pedestrian easement.
d. Dimensions.
No three-dimensional sian shall have a heiaht. width. or depth in
excess of six feet.
e. Volume.
The volume of the three-dimensional sian shall be calculated as the
entire volume within a rectanaular cube enclosina the extreme limits of
all parts of the sian and shall not exceed 20 cubic feet. For the purposes
of calculatina volume the minimum dimension for heiaht. width. or
depth shall be considered one foot.
f. Materials
The three-dimensional sians shall be constructed of metal. wood.
bronze. concrete. stone. alass. clay. fiberalass. or other durable
material. all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective alare.
Three dimensional sians shall not be constructed of plastic. Three
dimensional sians shall not be internally illuminated or contain any
electrical com ponent.
g. Three dimensional sians located in a Historic District shall be limited to
the reauirements of 18.96.080CB)5.
5. Portable Business Sians
a. Number
One portable business sian. limited to sandwich boards. pedestal sians.
'A' frame sians. flaas. and wind sians. shall be allowed on each lot
exceptina that buildinas. businesses. shoppina centers. and business
complexes with permanent around sians shall not be permitted to have
portable sians.
b. Area.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 13 of 15
Exhibit A
13
Sian area shall be deducted from the aaareaate sian allowed for exempt
incidental sians established in 18.96.030(H). Sians shall not exceed an
area of four (4) sauare feet per face includina any border or trim. and
there shall be no more than two (2) faces.
c. Heiaht.
Sandwich board sians and 'A' frame sians shall not extend more than
three (3) feet above the around on which it is placed. Pedestal sians
shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the around on which it is
placed. A freestandina wind sian shall not extend more than five (5) feet
above the around on which it is placed.
d. Placement.
Sians shall be placed so that no sian or portion thereof shall extend
beyond any property line of the premises on which such sian is located.
Portable sians shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance
and shall not be placed on public riaht-of-wav. No portable business
sian shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian
inaress and earess as reaulated within the Ashland Municipal Code.
e. General Lim itations
Sians shall be anchored. supported. or desianed as to prevent tippina
over. which reasonablv prevents the possibilitv of sians becomina
hazards to public health and safetv. Sians shall not be constructed of
plastic. illuminated or contain any electrical component. No obiects
shall be attached to a portable sian such as but not limited to balloons.
banners. merchandise. and electrical devices. Portable business sians
shall be removed at the dailv close of business. These sians are
prohibited while the business is closed.
SECTION 7. Chapter 18.96.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN
REGULATIONS: Abatement of Nuisance Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.96.110 Abatement of Nuisance Signs.
The following signs are hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be removed or the
nuisance abated:
A. Flashing sign visible from a public street or highway.
B. Temporary,~ movable signs or portable sians located on the publiclv owned
riaht-of-wav.
C. Illegal signs.
D. Signs in obvious disrepair which are not maintained according to the standards set
forth in 18.96.120(C).
SECTION 8. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and
clauses.
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 14 of 15
Exhibit A
14
SECTION 9. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in
existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions or other actions as
required by state law, were commenced shall remain valid and in full force and effect for
purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions
thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in
this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions or applications commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 10. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or
another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1,
8-10) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-
references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2009.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009
Page 15 of 15
Exhibit A
15
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE, SITE
DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS (SECTION 18.72.030) CONCERNING
PUBLIC ART ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly
or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter
specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not
inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all
powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have
perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as
affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to
Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiqhters, Local
1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730,734 (1975); and
WHEREAS the Mayor of the City of Ashland formed a Downtown Task Force to
make recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City
Council concerning inter alia the relationship of public art to the City sign code
and site design review code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-
referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code at a duly
advertised public hearing on February 10, 2009 and following deliberations
recommended approval, with modifications, of the amendments to the City
Council on February 24, 2009 and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised
public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 7, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order
to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future
residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments,
the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such
amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding.
Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009
16
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 8
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.72.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SITE DESIGN
REVIEW Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability.
Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below.
A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M
zones.
b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings,
schools, churches, etc.).
c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 100/0 of the area of
the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or
other changes which affect circulation.
e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use
which requires a greater number of parking spaces.
f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another
general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b
the zoning regulations of this Code.
g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit,
ami is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing
property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic
Places that reQuires a buildina permit. or includes the installation of
Public Art.
h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review
per Section 18.72.030(8).
2. Residential uses:
a. Two or more residential units on a single lot.
b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes,
condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts.
c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in
conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision
required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the
individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking).
d. Any exterior change to a structure 'Nhich requires a building permit
and is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that
reQuires a buildina permit. or includes the installation of Public Art.
e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review
per Section 18.72.030(8).
Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009
17
Page 2 of 3
Exhibit B
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses
of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection,
paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections,
subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendmenUrepeal, the City
ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions or
other actions as required by state law, were commenced shall remain valid and
in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the
times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply
clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of
prosecutions or applications commenced and continued under the laws in effect
at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in
the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article",
"section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and
boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sect~ons 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City
Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical
errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2009.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009
18
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit B
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
February 10, 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
2008-02013
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.96 Sign Regulations
REQUEST: Adoption of an Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter
(18.96) Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO).
I. Relevant Facts
A. Backaround
In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task
Force to evaluate concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement,
downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial
use. Members of the Downtown Task Force included representative downtown
merchants, members of the Planning, Historic, and Public Arts Commission,
Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large, to review
and make recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting
downtown merchants. The Downtown Task Force met five times through July
and August, 2008.
Upon hearing the Downtown Task Force Recommendations on September 2nd,
2008, the Ashland City Council initiated the Type III Planning Process directing
Staff to amend the Land Use Ordinance to address the identified concerns.
The Ashland Planning Commission has held two separate Study Sessions to
examine conceptual changes to the Sign Code on December 18th, 2008 and
January 2ih, 2009.
The Ashland Public Arts Commission reviewed the proposed changes and
submitted a Memo including their recommendations dated November 2008,
which is included in the record.
Planning Commission and members of the City Council also conducted a walking
tour of the downtown on February 5th, 2009, to become familiar with sign issues
on the ground prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for February 10, 2009.
The Ashland Historic Commission reviewed proposed changes to the Sign Code
specifically as they relate to Historic Districts, at their regular meeting on
February 4th, 2008. As of the date of writing this Staff Report the Historic
Commission meeting has not yet occurred and thus their recommendations shall
19
be presented at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
B. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.96
A revised copy of Chapter 18.96 is attached.
The substantive modifications to Chapter 18.96 are listed below and are
explained more fully in Section C.
Downtown Task Force suggested modifications
· Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the
downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an aggregate
area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification provides for an
additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three
dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cu.ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to install
one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cu.ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimensional signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification and
informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to better direct
pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest areas when
installed by the City under the exempt sign category.
. Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, lA' frame
and pedestal signs when located on private property and when within the square
footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to exempt qualified Public Art (per Chapter 2.17 of the
Municipal Code) from the Sign code requirements.
Planning Commission suggested modifications:
· Modifies the ordinance to eliminate the limitations upon "strings of lights" to allow
for other bulb types than incandescent and to allow for closer spacing of bulbs
than the 6" currently required by ordinance.
Staff suggested modifications
· Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to the
applicability of the ordinance.
. Modifies the ordinance to allow for area calculations to be considerate of the
common geometric shapes of circles, triangles, and rectangles.
. Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for temporary
construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for such signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays when
parked for an extended duration.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be counted when
fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision would then allow
additional area on the third and fourth frontages of a building.
C. Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous
influence upon the transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal
point, revered throughout the State and beyond. The existing sign code is a
20
classic product fashioned by a community well-known for its dedicated and
farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide new
opportunities for adequate signage for business identification, non-commercial
speech, and dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter,
protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character.
The preceding section of this report lists all the modifications proposed. This
section elaborates on the more substantive changes currently being considered
and the implications of various options being presented.
Section 18.96.020 Chanaes. Definitions Relatina to Sians
Area Definition
A commonly asked question at the counter in issuing sign permits is "How does the City
calculate the area of a sign?". The current definition is:
"The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign". (18.96.020).
Although relatively simple on its face, this definition has left a lot of room for
interpretation and thus Staff has suggested two options for the Commission to consider
in the proposed ordinance changes that would eliminate ambiguity.
Option 1 essentially formalizes the means by which staff has calculated the area of a
sign as bounded within a rectangle.
n;i~l,ftr~'-::fIII !!\ ~;1 u l~ - u u -- , l~
I l' i I I \) 'I} ....
II " II " \ i 1 'Ii ~
f , ,. l / ~ I , .M~ Il I
:",_/ -- - ~ - _1_.' LL_ '
~ ~ - - - - - - - - -- ~ - - - ~
. ~
width
Option 2 creates new opportunities to consider circles and triangles as additional
geometric shapes in calculating area. Additionally this definition would enable the City
to consider areas of multiple components of a sign to additively determine area as
bounded by these comm;lge. f~~,etriC shapes. area 1
~ I \ I + area 2
I~~a!~, - - - - - - ~i~~ ~~e~ - -, I
I; I 1 ...
I .. I .s:::
1 ' ,I .2'>>
J I Cl)
I _ '_ ___- _' " I I.s:::
I____~~~-----______I
4 .
width
Staff supports option 2 as a means of enabling a greater measure of creativity and
provide additional opportunities for more distinctive signage, without the disincentive of
decreased area allowance. Further the existing code language could be seen to support
such a methodology although that has not been its standard application over the years.
21
Public Art definition
Public Art would not be considered a sign per the proposed changes to 18.96, and as
such would no longer be regulated per this section.
The proposed change to 18.96 defines Public Art simply by referencing the definition
already existing in Chapter 2.17 of the Municipal Code which is as follows:
"All forms of original works of art in any media that has been planned and
executed with the specified intention of being sited or staged on City Property or
on property owned or controlled by the City of Ashland, usually outside and
accessible to the public. "
The approval of Public Art would therefore not be proceeded as a Land Use
Proceedings but rather through the application of the set criteria and juried selection
process fully outlined in Chapter 2.17.
Public Arts Commission Recommendation
The Public Arts Commission is supportive of the proposed code changes to remove
Public Art from review under the Sign Code.
Three dimensional sign definition
To distinguish three dimensional signs from the typical 2-D sign this definition
establishes that any sign having a relief of greater than 6" shall fall into the 3-D category
and be regulated as such. The limits of this new 3-D sign type are addressed in this
report under the section below on New Sign Types.
Section 18.96.030 Chanaes. ExemDt Sians
City Installed Directory Signs (18.96.030(A))
The modifications to) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force
recommendation to more explicitly enable the City to install various off-premises
directory signs on City property (including public right of way as well as city property)
to assist in directing people to interest areas that are otherwise not readily visible from
the street. The recommendation also expresses an interest in developing separate
policies to address issues of size, materials, color, font, materials, and location. The
proposed code change will enable the City to create a such a program to install
informational signs on City property.
Construction and Real Estate Signs (18.96.030(F&G))
In evaluating compliance issues Staff determined that the common practice of installing
multiple signs during construction was frequently in violation of the existing code. In
recognition of the need for contractors, architects, financial institutions and other parners in
new developments to post their company contact information in the form of small signs we
have proposed two options for the Commission to consider. These options are intended to
provide reasonable opportunities for Construction signs, while retaining some measure
retaining control over visual clutter and the proliferation of numerous small unsecured yard
signs on construction sites.
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in
residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
22
signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary construction signs
shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs on a lot not exceeding sixteen (16) square
feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
signs shall be limited to no more than four signs per lot. Freestanding temporary
construction signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
The second option is being presented to address discussion among Planning
Commissioners that occurred at the January 2th, 2009 Study Session. Should the
Commission choose to allow for more than one consolidated sign in which the multiple
yard signs could all be affixed and instead allow multiple individual signs, Staff
recommends limiting the total number to four.
The existing limitation on Construction and real-estate signs combined is currently 6
square feet in residential zones, and 12 square feet in Commercial zones. In separating
the sign types the proposed changes in Option 1 or Option 2 will allow a real estate sign
to be independent of the construction signs and as such increasing the total area
allowed as follows:
Sign Type Existing Proposed Existing limit Proposed Proposed
Allowable Area on number Limit on Limit on
Area N umber Number
(Option 1) (Option 2)
Real Estate - 6 sq.ft. 1 1
Residential
Construction - 6 sq.ft. 1
Residential 16 sq.ft. 1 4
Real Estate - 12 sq.ft. 1 1
Commercial
Construction - 12 sq.ft. 1
Commercial 32 sq.ft. 1 4
';'
Exempt 'Incidental' Signs
The modifications to 18.96.030(H) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force
recommendation to increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
downtown area. It was recommended that the allowable area for the additional proposed
sign be increased to 3 square feet for increased flexibility, and specifically in
consideration of restaurant needs for "menu" signs.
Strings of Lights
The proposed draft ordinance eliminates 'incandescent' and the spacing requirements
for Strings of Lights (18.96.030K). Commissioners had raised the question whether
such lights should be considered temporary, whereas under the current ordinance there
23
is no such time limit established. The proposed changes throughout this code are not
intended to limit existing uses, rather to refine definitions for clarity or expand available
opportunities for new signage. As such Staff is not recommending that a new time limit
be established to make "strings of lights" temporary.
Section 18.96.040 ChanQes. Prohibited Sians
Wall Graphics
Wall graphics (such as mosaics, murals, or signs painted directly on a wall) have
previously been prohibited under 18.96.040L. As such signs are similar in nature to wall
signs painted on a board and affixed to a wall, and would be subject to General Sign
Regulations and the limitations for wall signs, Staff recommends this prohibition be
eliminated.
Vehicle Signs
Section 18.96.040(M) is proposed by Staff independent of the Downtown Task Force
recommended changes to the Ordinance. The subject of Vehicle signs was not
discussed by the Task Force but has been an enforcement concern regarding vehicles
parked for extended periods on public streets solely for advertising purposes of adjacent
businesses. This section would not prohibit vehicle signs affixed to vehicles that are
used in the daily operation of a business such as delivery vehicles.
Sections 18.96.080 and 18.96.090 - New SiQn Types and increased allowances
Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area Section 18.96.080(8)1 b).
The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before
the City Council by Brett Thompson on September 2nd, 2008. Concerns raised related
to properties with business frontages on more than two streets or businesses whose
sole frontage is on a third or fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be
addressed in proposed amendments by forwarding implementing language for
consideration.
Two options are presented for the Commission s consideration in 18.080B1 b.
Option 1 would allow additional sign area (30sq.ft.) for the additional street frontage(s)
when defined as a 'business frontage (see definition 18.96.020(7)) while preserving
existing protections limiting what would be viewable from any single business frontage
(maximum of 60sq.ft.).
Option 2 Correlates the allowable additional sign area on three or more frontages to be
one sq.ft. for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This is ~ the area allowance
permitted for the primary or secondary frontages. Further Option 2 establishes that
business frontages of three or more on a single building shall comply with criteria from
the City's Site Design and Use Standards providing an attractive and functional
pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the
street, and providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk.
Staff recommends Option 2 as a preferred alternative to help ensure the third or fourth
frontage of a business are truly utilized by patrons and not merely presented to allow for
additional signage which would have the result of drawing customers toward a non
functional entrance. Further this method better relates the size of a sign to the size of
24
the business frontage.
Projection Distance
Section 18.96.080(B)1 c ) addresses a recommendation by the Downtown Task Force to
increase the maximum distance a sign can project from the face of a building from 18" to
2' to foster improved visibility as well as increased opportunities for such projection signs
to function as architectural elements. Specifically this modification was proposed to
assist businesses on smaller side streets and alleys with limited visibility from the main
streets within the downtown.
Three dimensional signs- Section 18.96.080(B)5a-g and 18.96.090B4a
The proposed ordinance amendments would establish a new sign type called
dimensional signs (defined as those signs having greater than a 6" relief). As proposed
the volume limits for these signs would be 3 cU.ft. in the downtown, and 20 cU.ft. outside
the downtown on commercially zoned property. This new provision was intended by the
Downtown Task Force to provide opportunities for unique and creative options for
businesses to connect to customers and the community. In addition to limitations on
height, width and depth, material restrictions have also been proposed prohibiting the
use of plastic and electrical components (see 18.96.080(B)5f and 18.96.090(B)4f).
The Downtown Task Force had recommended that such small 3-D signs in the
downtown (up to 3 cu.ft.) be considered as part of the exempt sign category, however
due to issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas, ingress egress
requirements of the fire and building codes, and building code compliance relating to the
method of permanently affixing such signs to the wall or ground, Staff has proposed
such signs as a permitted sign type to enable such review.
There has been discussion regarding whether the small 3-D sign in the downtown
should be counted against the area allocation for exempt incidental signs, or whether it
should be an additional sign allowance. Two options are presented in the draft code
language that distinguishes between these alternatives. As comparing square foot area
to cubic foot volume is not feasible, Staff now presents an option that resolves this
concern in limiting the total number of such small signs, both incidental and 3D, within
the downtown.
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot. This is in addition to the
limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee
signs.
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three square
foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96. 030H.
Downtown Task Force recommendations
The Downtown Task Force recommended allowing 3cu.ft. three-dimensional signs within
the downtown. The Downtown Task Force also recommended the City consider allowing
larger 3-D signs outside the downtown. In large part their discussion related to an
existing 3-D statue ("Alfredo" at Wiley's Restaurant) which is approximately 20 cubic feet
in size. Members of the Downtown Task force addressed concerns over the proliferation
of prefabricated 3-D signs at chain franchises, such as a Bob's Big Boy statue, in that
25
the size and material limitations would limit such 3-D signs.
Public Arts Commission Recommendations
The Public Arts Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and provided a memo for the
Planning Commission's consideration (attached). Further members of the Public Arts
Commission presented at the study session held January 27, 2009 which are reflected in
the minutes (attached). In relation to 3-D signs the Public Arts Commission stated they
are opposed to 3D signs outside the downtown area.
Historic Commission Recommendations
The Historic Commission is scheduled to review the Sign Code amendments at their
meeting on February 4th, 2009. As this report has been prepared in advance of their
meeting, their recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission during
the public hearing on February 10th, 2009.
Portable Signs - Sandwich Boards and Pedestal Signs(18.96.080(B)6
The Downtown Task Force explored the option of allowing sandwich boards and
pedestal signs when discussing the desire to increase exposure for businesses not on a
major street. The issue was largely resolved through the concept of enabling the City to
install collective directional signs (as proposed in18.96.030A).
However the use of pedestal signs or sandwich boards on the businesses private
property still may have merit provided such sign areas are calculated in consideration of
the exempt sign allowance. Although typical exempt signs are not required to obtain
sign permits, Staff has proposed this section under the permitted sign section to allow
assessment of issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas,
ingress egress requirements of the fire and building code, and compliance with
maximum height requirement through the sign permit process. The size, materials, and
location of such signs would also be limited by the proposed ordinance amendment.
II. Procedural
The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows:
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance
or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive
plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative
amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by
application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable
meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to
the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the
Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the
26
proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the
required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a
public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission,
the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place
of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be
given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days
prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be
considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following
a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new
application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of
circumstances warrant it.
Pursuant to ORS 197.610, a pre-notice, including draft language that is to be
considered through the public hearing process, was sent to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on December 22, 2008, which by statute is
more than 45 days prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for
.~ February 10th. Pursuant to ORS 197.615, the City of Ashland will provide notice to
DLCD within 5 days of the final decision by the City of Ashland.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Planning Commission shall consider public testimony received, the Public Arts
Commission recommendation, the Historic Commission recommendations, the
Downtown Task Force Recommendations, and Staff recommendations regarding the
various options presented for sign code amendments.
In consideration of testimony received, and selection of specific options for inclusion in a
final ordinance, Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the City Council to update and revise Ashland's land use requirements
regarding such factors as the size, number, type, materials, and location of signs.
27
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Communication
Date: February 24, 2009
Re: Sign Code Amendments
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Sian Code Materials
A revised copy of the draft sign code is attached for your consideration and
recommendation. Please refer to the Planning Commission February 10th, 2009,
packet, for the full Staff Report and addendum (dated 2/10/2009), Downtown Task
Force Summary Report (dated 8/21/2008), Public Arts Commission Memo (dated
11/2008), Council and Commission minutes, and letters which were previously
submitted into the public record for Planning Action 2008-02013.
Staff received a new letter from the Public Arts Commission following the hearing on
February 10th which is included as an attachment. All information previously considered
submitted into the public record will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration of the sign ordinance amendments.
This Planning Commission Communication aims to respond to items raised during the
Planning Commission's February 10th meeting to assist the Commission in its final
deliberations.
Wall Graphics
Wall graphics (signs painted directly upon the wall) are currently prohibited by ordinance.
If this prohibition were removed such wall graphics would still be considered a sign they
would remain subject to the area and other limitations within the ordinance. Staff had
initially suggested that such a prohibition be removed, however in consideration of
testimony provided at the Public Hearing on February 10, 2009 before the Commission,
Staff recognizes that wall graphics could potentially have adverse impacts on historic
resources when located on contributing historic buildings. Of particular concern is the
somewhat permanent nature of painted signs of raw materials such as brick or stone,
and the difficulty of removal at the change of a building's occupant business. In light of
these concerns Staff now recommends retaining the current prohibition against wall
graphics
Given the scope of the proposed changes to the ordinance are largely supportive of
specific changes recommended by the Downtown Task Force, and they did not review
the issue of removing the prohibition of wall graphics, it may be appropriate to at this
time retain the prohibition. The Downtown Task Force had recommended review of the
sign ordinance within 2 years of the adoption of any amendments. Should the Planning
Commission and Council wish to evaluate the issue of wall graphics and potential
impacts and opportunities more comprehensively before allowing them such a review
could be completed at that time.
28
Three Dimensional Signs
The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allowing small three cubic foot signs
within the downtown and other Historic Districts. Concern was raised by staff regarding
the location of 3-D signs to be explicitly on private property as initially proposed would
preclude their installation as hanging marquee signs or attached to the face of a building.
To address this Staff is now presenting modified language that would allow 3-D signs in
these circumstances provided they retain sufficient vertical clearance (8' when attached
to a building - as currently required in 18.96.080(4)c, and 7'6" when attached to a
marquee as currently required per 18.96.080(3)d.
A question regarding the establishment of a maximum height for the proposed 20cu.ft.
signs was raised at the public hearing on February 10th,2009. The maximum height was
derived in part in consideration that permanent ground signs can only be 5' above grade
and as such 3-D signs should be comparable. It was recognized that a specific 3-D sign
that was the impetus behind the proposed change ('Alfredo' at Wiley's World Pasta)
was taller than five feet and thus the five foot maximum height would need to be
increased to accommodate such 3-D signs. As the Building Code requires that a
structural building permit be obtained for construction of any structure, or fence, greater
than six feet in height to ensure that footings are of adequate design to resist wind loads,
Staff has presented six feet as an appropriate to limit the maximum height for
freestanding 3-D signs.
A question was also raised as to whether fiberglass would be an allowable material for
3-D signs. Although Staff stated that it would not be seen as prohibited as is plastic, to
clarify this issue staff has now inserted "fiberglass" as an allowable durable material for
consideration in the proposed amendments as attached (18.96.080.B5(f) and 18.98.090.B4(f)).
Portable Signs
At the Planning Commission meeting on February 10th, 2009 the location of portable
signs was briefly discussed. Concern was raised that allowing such signs on private
property, even when far removed from a business entrance, could allow for the
proliferation of sandwich boards adjacent to major arterial streets used extensively to
attract motorist attention. The ordinance amendments as originally proposed address
this concern in part by limiting the placement of portable signs to only be on those lots
that do not contain a permanent ground sign. This is further clarified in the current
revision by expanding this limitation to include shopping centers and business
complexes (18.96.080.B6(a) and 18.98.090.B5(a)). Permanently installed ground signs should
function to advertise a business location to passing motorists. As the intention of
portable signs was to enable businesses to better communicate to pedestrians passing a
business frontage staff has also inserted new language on placement to limit the location
of portable signs to within ten feet of the business entrance (18.96.080.B6(d) and
18.98.090.B5(d)).
Flags
During the public hearing the issue of flags was raised by a business owner that has
been precluded from locating Tibetan prayer flags in front of his business, Sound Peace,
due to the prohibition currently in the sign ordinance. Wind Signs by definition include
banners, flags, balloons, and other objects fastened in such a manner as to move upon
29
being subject to pressure by wind or devise. This movement by wind is essential to the
symbolic function of Tibetan Prayer flags. Such movement is also a means of attracting
attention beyond that provided by static sign display. Elimination of visual clutter to
promote a more pleasing environment was precisely the purpose of the prohibitions
enacted in 1982 and 1989 (Ord 2440) which precluded wind signs, movable copy,
flashing signs, and animated signs.
Should the Commission and Council ultimately wish to allow for wind signs Staff
recommends specific limitations that would regulate height, location and size of such
signs be included in the ordinance. To this end, by allowing wind signs as "portable
signs" within the ordinance amendments as attached ((18.96.080.B6(a) and 18.98.090.B5(a)),
such flags would be held to the maximum area allowed for portable signs (4 sq.ft.). The
allowable area used by such wind signs or flags would also be deducted from the
allowable exempt incidental sign allowance currently proposed. Placement limitations
for portable signs would also apply (on private property and within 10' or the business
entrance) and they would have to be removed at the daily close of business. A new
provision limiting the height of a freestanding wind signs (such as flags on a pole) to be
no more than five feet above the ground on which it is placed is intended to ensure that
such portable signs do not exceed the height allowance otherwise permitted for
permanent ground signs.
In the event the Commission and Council do not include such provisions in a final
ordinance, given Sound Peace sells such flags, the display of the specific flags that
raised the issue could be considered the outdoor display of merchandise and allowable
only if approved through a Conditional Use Permit Process.
Public Art
As discussed in the February 10th, 2009 Staff Report, Staff believes that addressing the
impacts upon exterior changes to contributing historic properties, including Public Art
permanently affixed to a building, is appropriately addressed through the site review
process rather than the sign code. The preservation of Historic Resources and the
promotion of Public Art are both valued contributions to the sense of place Ashland has
fostered over many years. Both Public Art and historic resources are cultural resources
that provide attractions that can draw people to and enhance public perception of an
area. Each priority can be accommodated provided there is a considered review which
is sensitive to the integrity of historic resources while recognizing the social and cultural
significance of proposed public art.
Should the Planning Commission recommend in favor of removing Public Art from
regulation per the provisions of the sign code, staff recommends the Site Design Review
applicability criteria be simultaneously changed as follows:
30
Potential Code Amendments:
18.72.030 Site Design Review
Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires ::l building permit, ::lnd is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property
within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that
reQuires a buildinQ permit, or includes the installation of Public Art.
2. Residential uses:
d) Any exterior change to a structure v:hich requires a building permit and is
individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that reQuires a buildina
permit, 0 or includes the installation of Public Art.
31
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Communication
Addendum
Date: February 10, 2009
Re: Sign Code Amendments
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Historic Commission Review
The Planning Commission received a staff report regarding Planning Action 2008-
02013, potential sign code amendments, for review at the February 10th, 2009. At the
time the Staff report was drafted the Historic Commission had not yet reviewed the
proposed changes.
On February 4th, the Historic Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance changes
and had the flowing general comments to forward to the Planning Commission for
Consideration:
Wall Graphics
The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allow 'wall graphics' (signs
painted directly upon the wall. As such wall graphics would still be considered a
sign they would remain subject to Historic Commission review when applied to
buildings within a designated Historic District.
Three Dimensional Signs
The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allowing small three cubic
foot signs within the downtown and other Historic Districts.
Public Art
Upon review of potential sign Changes the Historic Commission reached consensus at their
regular meeting on February 4th, that Public Art should not be regulated as signs under the land
use code, however they expressed that the selection of art, or locations, within Historic Districts
should consider Historic Commission recommendations in the process. Currently the CUP
process through the sign ordinance for the installation of government signs allows for such an
opportunity as public art is currently considered a sign.
The primary concerns articulated at the February 5th meeting of the Historic Commission
involved the need to ensure the historic integrity of contributing historic buildings in relation to
public art installations is not compromised.
32
Staff Comment
Opportunities for Public Art would be severely limited on private properties if they were
considered "signs" as the size, material, location, height, relief, and number would all be
prescriptive. Further, "Public Art" defined as a sign would reduce the allowable area for
commercial signs on the business granting an easement for the installation of Public Art. This
reduction in allowable sign area would be a significant disincentive to those private property
owners otherwise willing to grant an easement for Public Art. For this reason Staff remains
supportive of exempting public art from the Sign Code. Within Historic Districts however there
remains a number of compelling reasons to have Public Art subject to a more formalized review
process.
To this end requiring the installation of Public Art that includes an alteration to a contributing
historic building within a Historic District to be subject to Site Review Approval could address the
concerns of the Historic Commission and assist in protecting historic resources. This process
would afford opportunities for both creativity and variety not otherwise achievable through its
inclusion in the sign code.
This Site Review Approval Process would also ensure Public Art installations:
· Comply with Land Use requirements such as the requirements of the Basic
and/or Detailed Site Review Zones.
· Provide for on-site circulation systems and provide for vision clearance..
· Ensure pedestrian walkways in the public right of way are not obstructed or
impeded.
· Retain an attractive and functional entrance directly accessible from the street
· Comply with the prohibition to use bright or neon colors used extensively to
attract attention to the building
· Subject to Historic Commission review and recommendation for those
installations within the historic district.
Potential Code Amendments:
18.72.030 Site Design Review
Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
g. Any exterior change to a structure which roquires ~ building pormit, ~nd is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District
on the National Register of Historic Places that reauires a buildina permit. or includes
the installation of Public Art.
A similar amendment could be included for Residential Properties individually listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Staff believes that addressing the impacts upon exterior changes to contributing historic
properties, including Public Art permanently affixed to a building, is appropriately addressed
through the site review process.
33
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Communication
Date: December 18th, 2008
Re: Sign Code Amendments Study Session
Submitted By: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Summary
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the
transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal point, revered throughout the
State and beyond. The existing sign code is a classic product fashioned by a community well-
known for its dedicated and farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide
new opportunities for adequate signage for business identification, non-commercial speech, and
dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and
preserving Ashland's unique character.
The Planning Commission is being presented with draft ordinance amendments to the Sign
Code at this study session for discussion and comment. A public hearing to address final
amendments proposed will subsequently be scheduled, at which time the Planning Commission
will make formal recommendations to the City Council for consideration.
Background
In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate
concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement, downtown employee parking, and the
use of public right-of-way for commercial use. Members of the Task Force included
representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning and Public Arts Commission,
Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large to review and make
recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting downtown merchants. The
Task force met throughout July and August to evaluate options for various remedies and
ordinance changes to address the items identified. Public testimony was taken at each meeting
to provide the Task Force with input from merchants who were specifically impacted by current
compliance activities being conducted by the Community Development Department.
Issues relating to downtown employee parking have already been addressed by the City
Council through elimination of the downtown employee parking ban. The issues relating to the
of use of public property, such as commercial use of sidewalks along a business frontage, will
be addressed outside of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance through modifications to other
chapters of the Ashland Municipal code including Chapter 6, Business Licenses and
Regulations, and Chapter 13, regulating the use of the Public Rights of Way.
The potential changes to the Sign Code, as attached ,have been largely based on the
discussion by the Task Force, consideration of enforcement, and an effort to add clarification to
the existing code.
34
The following issues outline the areas of modification to the Sign Code currently presented:
· Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to the
applicability of the ordinance
· Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the
downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an aggregate
area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification provides for an
additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three
dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cU.ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to install
one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cu. ft.
· Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimentional signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for temporary
construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for such signs.
· Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification and
informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to better direct
pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest areas when
installed by the City under the exempt sign category.
· Modifies the ordinance to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays when
parked for an extended duration.
· Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be counted when
fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision would then allow
additional area of signage to increase from 60sq.ft maximum for one or two
frontages, to a 90sq.ft. maximum for properties with three or four frontages when
the businesses have a prominent entry open to pedestrians on those additional
frontages.
· Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, "A' frame
and pedestal signs when located on private property and when within the square
footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs.
35
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
August 20, 2008
At the initiation of Mayor John Morrison and in conjunction with the Ashland
Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Task Force was created to address
concerns raised by merchants regarding aspects of the sign code, downtown
parking and private/commercial use of the public right of way and the level of
enforcement by the City.
In the opening of the first of what turned into five consecutive Monday afternoon
meetings in July and August, Mayor Morrison explained his view on the charge of
the Task Force encouraging the members to focus on immediate concerns that
can be addressed within the "fast track" timeline.
At the request of the members, City Staff presented the Task Force with a list of
issues and potential options to discuss that may resolve or at least alleviate the
impact of the particular issue. Over the course of the five meetings, the Task
Force took public input on each issue, received input from City Staff, discussed
and ultimately voted on a recommendation for each issue.
The following summary is divided into two elements. The first element includes
immediate fixes to some of the most visible and controversial issues in the format
of issue statement, recommendation of the Task Force and reasoning of
recommendation. The second element includes more fundamental
recommendations that require a broader scope of review and direction from City
Council.
Issue #1
Particularly in the Downtown area, the limitation on exempt signs (no permit
required) of 2 signs of two square feet do not meet the needs of the businesses
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
Downtown Area with the third sign having a maximum area of
three square feet rather than the two square feet allowed for
the other two sig ns
Reasoning:
The additional exempt sign will provide businesses with
increased flexibility in how they allocate signage and also
assists in addressing a specific concern of restaurant menu
36
signs that came up multiple times in public testimony and task
force discussions.
Issue #2
The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional signs/representations of
merchandise of any type
Recommendation: Allow one of the three exempt signs to be three dimensional if
the property is within the Downtown area or within one of the
four Historic Districts with its volume measurement being
equivalent to the square footage limitations on exempt signs,
which would result in the 3-D sign having a maximum size of 3
square feet.
Recommendation: Allow an additional exempt 3-D sign for properties outside the
Historic Districts with a volume of approximately 20 cubic feet.
Specific size, surface detailing, location on property, materials
and illumination standards will be determined through
Planning Commission and City Council review and approval.
Reasoning:
The removal of the prohibition of three dimensional objects for
signage provides unique and creative options for businesses
to connect with their customers and the community. The
limitations placed upon the 3-D signs provide adequate
protection for the community in preventing objects that are out
of scale with the building or that create too large of a visual
distraction.
Issue #3
Some businesses, by virtue of their business access, have limited signage
opportunity along the main streets within the downtown area.
Recommendation: Increase the allowed maximum projection of a sign from the
current 18 inches from the building face to 24 inches from the
building face. Existing State Building Code addresses the
minimum height above grade (sidewalk level) needed for any
structure or sign to project over the public right of way.
Reasoning:
Increasing the amount of projection may provide better angles
of visibility for businesses on smaller side streets or alley's and
could also function as an architectural element of a building
while still having a scale that cannot overtake a business
frontage.
Issue #4
37
The use of the public right of way for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafe's (AMC 6.44), which is not an equitable method
for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public sidewalks.
Recommendation: Expand the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance to allow an abutting
property owner similar availability to obtain a permit for the use
of a portion of the sidewalk right of way if public safety and
access conditions/standards have been met. The charge for
such a permit would be based on the square footage of the
sidewalk right of way being privately utilized
Reasoning:
Issue #5
Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition of
placing signage in the public right of way (sidewalk area primarily). Some
businesses have exposure issues with their business location and feel that off-
site signage is necessary for adequate exposure for their business.
Recommendation: Create a set of guidelines and policies for the placement of
informational/directional signs by the City in the right of way.
The guidelines would determine the standards for the signage
and could include maximum size, color, font, content (name,
arrow, type of business, etc), materials, location. An example
could be a small sign at the entrance to an alley with the
words "more shops" or "restaurants" or "galleries". In certain
situations with physical site constraints, the use of the specific
business name incorporated into other City signage could also
be integrated into the guidelines.
Reasoning:
Issue #6
The proliferation of newspaper/misc publication racks within the downtown is
creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to newspaper racks that would
set standards for the placement of newsracks, such as
maximum dimensions for grouping of racks, distance between
rack groupings. The ordinance would also address aesthetic
standards, maintenance and use standards to ensure public
safety and to eliminate existing problems of litter, abandoned
racks and the removal of publication materials that may not
qualify for placement on the right of way.
Reasoning:
It was unanimously agreed that the proliferation of newsracks
in the downtown area has reached a point where regulation on
38
their use and placement is critical. The current lack of
regulation has created somewhat of an "anything goes"
situation and City Staff has little to no ability to address the
issue
Issue #7
The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what
types of objects are encouraged, allowed or legal in the public right of way
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that would allow for the placement
of functional items (planter boxes, benches, trash cans, safety
items, etc) if they meet a set of minimum safety and placement
standards. The Task Force also recommends that there not
be individual permits for each object placed if it meets the
minimum safety and placement standards. Items that do not
meet the standards could have some sort of permit or review
process.
Reasoning:
The Task Force was very intent on solving this issue in a way
that encouraged the "right stuff' to be able to be placed in the
right of way to help beautify the streetscape and also allow
some individual expression within the constraints of public
safety and access considerations. Creating a list of what
types of "functional objects" that are allowed and what
minimum standards they must meet will hopefully avoid the
need for individual permit requirements that may result in
discouraging businesses from enhancing the streetscape.
Issue #8
Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have
expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and
employee access to the downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the
Downtown Area.
Reasoning:
39
The conclusion of the group was that the ordinance was put in
place primarily at the request and benefit of the business
community so if they now feel that it is not working, or no
longer needed in actual ordinance form, it would be
reasonable to remove it and leave the matter to the merchants
to self regulate.
Issue #9
The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to
more efficiently administer the downtown parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles
that have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid
parking ticket balance of $250. Additionally, the City should
implement a final, very visible, warning placard be placed on a
vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle being towed. The
Task Force does not recommend the inclusion of
booting/immobilization of vehicles in addition to the towing
option.
Reasoning:
The Task Force felt very strongly that the City does need
adequate tools to collection from flagrant parking violators;
however, the use of a boot or other immobilization technique
has a very visual aspect that may not send the type of
message to our community. Additionally, the
booUimmobilization renders the parking space unusable until
the operator contacts the City and pays or until it gets towed,
which most likely equates to 12 to 24 hours.
40
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission
City of Ashland
November 2008
Dear Planning Commission:
The mission of the Public Art Commission reads in part .... .to enhance the cultural and
aesthetic quality of life in Ashland... "
We are passionate about preserving and enhancing the aesthetic beauty of Ashland and
we believe the attractiveness of Ashland and lack of visual clutter is due in large part to
the current sign code.
We support the recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to exclude public art from
the sign code (specifically definition #27) but we are opposed to the recommendation to
allow 3 dimensional signs - which we believe could have a negative impact on Ashland
aesthetics.
The powers and duties of the Public Art Commission include the following:
D. The commission shall advise the planning commission, the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Cc:mmission, other city commissions and committees and city departments
regarding artistic components of all municipal government projects under consideration
by the city. The commission may also serve as a resource for artistic components of land
use developments.
As such, we respectfully submit the attached memo for your consideration and look
forward to discussing this with you at an upcoming study session.
Sincerely,
Melissa Markell, Chair
Public Art Commission
C: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Art Commission
41
CITY OF
ASHLAND
MEMO
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
C:
November 2008
City of Ashland Planning Commission
City of Ashland Public Art Commission
3 dimensional signs
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Art Commission
The Public Arts Commission respectfully proposes an alternative recommendation to the
recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to modify the current sign code and allow
3 dimensional signs outside the downtown core of up to twenty cubic feet.
The Downtown Task Force's recommendation #2 provides for two scenarios: allowing 3
dimensional signs in the downtown and historic districts limited to three cubic feet and
allowing 3 dimensional signs located outside the downtown area and historic districts up
to twenty cubic feet. In both scenarios, the object must be placed on private property.
We feel the allowance of 3 dimensional signs significantly increases the risk of visual
clutter and the unintended consequences are greater than the potential benefit to Ashland
businesses.
The Task Force admirably strove to accommodate the existing non-compliant 3
dimensional objects (lion, teddy bear, and waiter). The lion would be accommodated
under recommendation #6 allowing "functional objects", the bear would be
accommodated under recommendation #5 allowing the display of merchandise on public
property for a rental fee and the chef/waiter accommodated under recommendation #2
allowing 3 dimensional objects up to twenty cubic feet outside the downtown core and
historic districts.
All three of these existing items are objects with no blatant commercial message (words
or logos). These generic objects are not associated solely with the business. However,
since regulation of sign content is prohibited there could be a preponderance of 3
dimensional objects with blatant commercial messages that clutter Ashland's visual
landscape as businesses seek greater exposure and visibility. If 3 dimensional signs are
allowed, they likely would have strong and obvious references to the business,
graphically (doughnuts, tires, pizzas, and cameras) with or without words. Or the 3
dimensional objects might only contain words ("'TIRES" spelled out of large letters that
appear to be made of tires). Either way, the potential for eye clutter is great. This effect
would likely be exacerbated where businesses are clustered together (shopping centers).
Given that the recommendation is an opportunity for an additional sign of significant
42
size, the opportunity for businesses to take advantage of this for advertising purposes is
great.
It is understandable that business owners want to draw attention to their business as a
means of attracting customers. In lieu of the Task Force recommendation #2, we believe
an appropriate, artistic and aesthetic way to accomplish this desire is through the
placement of public art.
After adoption of the Public Art Master Plan, the City Council requested the public art
selection process be codified. The revised and expanded public art ordinance will go to
the Council for first reading in early December 2008.
The ordinance allows for the placement of public art on private property (through an
easement) and includes guidelines for selection including: "'The artwork shall not
promote goods or services of adjacent or nearby business." Through the public art
process, content of the piece is managed via criteria set forth in the request for proposal
and via the guidelines established in the ordinance. A selection panel; separate from the
public art commission and comprised of a variety of persons selects the winning design
and makes the recommendation to the PAC who brings it forward to the City Council for
final approval.
This method of soliciting and selecting 3 dimensional objects helps to protect the visual
aesthetics of the community and provides an opportunity for businesses to call attention
to their business in an attractive and noncommercial way and enables the city to retain
some level of control over the appearance, message and content. While the objects would
not be advertising for a specific business, it could serve the same purpose of drawing
customers: people making a point to go to view the art and then visiting existing
businesses; or serving as a point of reference when providing directions to a business or
location. The art might be a mural, a mosaic, a kinetic piece, a three dimensional
interactive piece etc. It would serve to draw the customers rather than a collection of
advertising signs.
Should the Planning Commission decide to move forward with the Task Force
recommendation of 3 dimensional signs, the Public Art Commission encourages the
Planning Commission to impose a one year review of the amendments versus the two
year review as proposed by the Task Force. A two year review allows time for a
significant number of 3 dimensional signs to be installed - and regardless of the review
outcome those signs will no doubt be in place for years.
Further, the Public Art Commission urges the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate
the proposed dimensions, (the difference between a 3D 'object' and a "'fat" 2D sign), and
consider the possible unanticipated consequences (giant 3D hamburgers).
Thank you for your consideration of our position and suggestions.
43
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Dave Dotterrer
Larry Blake
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Tom Dimitre
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
New Planning Commissioner Larry Blake was introduced to the group.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the Council's approval of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan and
indicated staff and the Planning Commission would soon begin working on implementation.
PUBLIC FORUM
Julie Norman/596 Helman/Spoke regarding the herbicide issue in the proposed Water Resource Protection Zones ordinance.
Ms. Norman encouraged the City to steadily reduce the use of herbicides. She stated she is a member of the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and explained this group has worked with cities, colleges, and agencies throughout the
Northwest to perform steady transitions away from chemicals. She submitted written material to the Commission for their
review, and stated her goal is to help make the ordinance precise, enforceable, and headed toward reducing herbicide use.
Angie Thusius/S97 Beach/Also spoke regarding herbicide use. Ms. Thusius shared her concerns regarding herbicides and
explained many herbicides that were once deemed safe are not recommended for use anymore. She commented on the
glyphosate product, which is referenced in the proposed Water Resource Protection Zones ordinance, and encouraged the
City to do more research before this herbicide is allowed. Ms. Thusius noted that 17 cities throughout the Northwest have
parks that are either transitioning away from herbicide use or are already herbicide free, and noted the maintenance costs for
these parks have not increased.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 200S-02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size, number and materials of signage allowed within
residential and commercial zones. (This is a continuation from the February 10th meeting. The Public Hearing is closed
and the Planning Commission is in deliberations. )
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman reviewed the recent changes to the ordinance that address the comments received at the
February 10 public hearing.
44
1) Wall Graphics. Staff had initially recommended the prohibition on wall graphics be removed, but following the
concerns raised at the public hearing, staff is now recommending the prohibition language be retained in the
ordinance.
2) Portable Signs. Staff is recommending new language that limits the placement of portable signs to within 10ft.
of the business entrance,
3) Flags. Mr. Goldman stated if the Commission wants to allow Tibetan prayer flags, staff recommends inserting
language for wind signs with specific limitations on height, location and size.
4) 3D Signs. It was clarified "fiberglass" has been inserted as an allowable durable material.
5) Public Art. Mr. Goldman explained if the public art provision is removed from the Sign Code, there is a strong
rational to allow for review of public art when it is altering the fa9ade of a historic building. Staff is proposing
additional language to AMC 18.72.030 which would state "or includes the installation of public art." This would
require the addition of public art on a historical building to have a review process that includes review by the
Historic Commission before it comes to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Goldman commented on the signage allowance for buildings with multiple frontages, and clarified the draft ordinance
includes an allowance for the 3rd and 4th frontage to have half the signage amount that would be allowed for the 15t or 2nd
frontage. Mindlin expressed concern with this language and felt equal signage should be allowed for each side of the building
when there are different businesses housed inside. Marsh voiced her support for the proposed language. She noted they are
expanding the signage amount that is currently allowed and felt this was a good compromise. It was noted that Brent
Thompson, who is the citizen who originally raised this issue, has indicated his support for the provision provided by staff. Mr.
Molnar used the back wall in the Council Chamber to give a realistic example of how much signage the 3rd or 4th side of a
building would get given the proposed language.
Mr. Goldman clarified the provision that would allow for Sound Peace's prayer flags. He noted the limit for free standing signs
and clarified wind signs are classified as portable signs and the flags would need to be taken down each night. He added staff
did not want to create a window of opportunity for various banner signs and the intent of the language is to create a narrow
window to accommodate a narrow circumstance. Comment was made expressing concern with the proposed language,
indicating it would not accommodate the Sound Peace prayer flags. Mr. Goldman suggested Sound Peace would likely need
to lower the flags on the pole in order to come into compliance with the proposed language.
Comment was made expressing concern with whether the proposed 3D provision would successfully accommodate the
Alfredo statue outside Wiley's Pasta. Mr. Goldman commented on statue's 4 in. base and indicated the business owner may
need to sink the base two inches in order to bring Alfredo into compliance.
Commissioner Dotterrer/Marsh mls to recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendments as presented
to Chapter 18.96 and 18.72.030 of the Ashland land Use Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh,
Miller, Mindlin and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Goals
Commissioner Mindlin noted the City Council will be discussing their goals next month and encouraged the Planning
Commission to have a discussion on this so that they can provide input during that process. Dotterrer voiced his support for
this discussion and stated the Planning Commission should provide input on land use planning goals and have the Council
make a determination during their goal setting on which priorities they would like the Commission to work on.
Staff noted the following planning related City Council goals that have not yet been completed:
· Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance
· Develop Strategy for the Railroad Property
· Downtown Planning Process
· Affordable Housing Goal
45
Mr. Molnar also noted the TSP update and explained the Planning Commission will have a substantial role in this project as
well. He voiced his support for the Commission providing input to the Council, but reminded the Commission of the economic
situation the City is in and noted the recent 20% reduction in Planning staff.
The Commission continued their discussion on possible goals they would like to bring forward to the City Council. Several
suggestions were made, including the following:
· Encourage Council to complete Visioning Process and offer the Planning Commission's involvement in anyway that
would be helpful.
· Revision of the land use areas of the Comprehensive Plan
· Transportation Planning
· Water Infiltration
· Changing Design Standards to incorporate Solar Orientation issues
· Complete second portion of Sustainability Work Groups task (determine what other government agencies are doing)
· Implement Croman Mills Redevelopment Plan
Mr. Molnar commented that staff envisions a number of these aspects (water infiltration, solar orientation, sustainability) being
addressed as part of the Croman Mills plan. He added the policies that are developed could be applied city wide, and not just
the Croman property.
Council Liaison Eric Navickas voiced his support for the Planning Commission providing input on the Council's goals and
stated he would share the Commission's desires with the Council.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer mls to recommend the following goals to the City Council: 1) Strategic
VisionNisioning, and offer the Planning Commission's involvement in anyway that is helpful, 2) Transportation
Planning if the TSP goes forward, and incorporating a planning vision and active participation in that process, 3)
Continue with the Croman planning process and incorporate potential issues such as solar orientation and water
infiltration design standards, and 4) Indicate the Planning Commission's desire to specifically look at sustainability in
terms of researching what other municipal entities have done. DISCUSSION: Mr. Molnar commented on the
implementation phase of the Croman Plan and recommended the Planning Commission and City Council come to an
agreement on the scope and timeline early in the process. Miller voiced concern with the number of jobs the consultants have
proposed for the Croman property and stated if they are going to address sustainability issues with this plan they need to have
an awareness of their limitations in terms of capacity. Comment was made that the Commission will be able to have a more
detailed discussion on these items at a later date, and the motion on the table is the recommendation of these items as goals.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
46
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Pam Marsh
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Dawkins
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Michael Church has resigned from his position on the Planning
Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting
2. January 27, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session
Commissioners Morris/Dimitre mls to approve the January 13, 2009 and January 27, 2009 meeting minutes. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street
APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County
DESCRIPTION: A request for modification of the previously approved Planning Action #2004-00141 for the Willowbrook
Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential
affordable housing development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. A previously approved request for an
Exception to Street Standards to allow a portion of the sidewalk on Clay Street to be installed at curbside to
accommodate a cedar tree on the southwest corner of the site remains unchanged, and the application also includes a
request for a tree removal permit to remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where only
eight trees were previously approved for removal. (This property is owned jointly by the City of Ashland and the Housing
Authority of Jackson County. The 2004 Annexation and Performance Standards Subdivision approval for Willowbrook
47
Subdivision was for 107 residential units. The required minimum density of the site can be met through future
development of the remainder of the property.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:
39 1 E 11 C; TAX LOT #: 2500
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Mindlin stated she was contacted by phone by a gentleman named Huelz, who indicated his disappointment that the project
did not meet Zero Net Energy standards.
Morris stated Huelz left the same message on his answering machine.
Dimitre received the same phone call, however he did not listen to the message left by Huelz.
Marsh received the same phone call from Huelz. He indicated the same concerns outlined by Mindlin and shared his concerns
with the site's carbon footprint and urged the Commission to send the project back for modification. Marsh also performed a
site visit.
Miller received the same phone call from Huelz and she also performed a site visit. Miller declared that she had recently
contacted the Housing Authority to obtain updated subsidized housing figures, and clarified this application was not discussed
during that phone call.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the Staff Report and reviewed the size, location, and history of the property. He
explained this site was the subject of the Willowbrook Subdivision approval, which occurred in 2006, and he reviewed the
previously approved subdivision layout. Severson clarified the improvements associated with the Willowbrook approval, and
noted the requirement for 17 affordable units and for the property to be developed to 90% of its base density.
Severson explained the current application proposes a three-lot land partition. Lot 1 would be approximately 4.32 acres in size
and preserved in City ownership for development at a future date. Lot 2 (which is roughly 4 acres in size) would be owned by
the Housing Authority and developed into 60 residential units. And Lot 3, which is 1.32 acres, would be preserved in City
ownership to protect the wetlands. Additionally, a 20 ft. strip would be preserved to provide a potential future connection
between Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Severson reviewed the Housing Authority's site plan and explained they are proposing to develop 60 units in 10 buildings. He
noted the Applicant's request to remove 12 trees, and clarified the removal of 8 trees was previously approved. Severson
reviewed the tree removal plan, planting plan, conceptual utility plan, and proposed street improvements. He clarified the
proposed turn lane would not be installed if the median is placed on Ashland Street. He also noted the Tree Commission's
recommendation to preserve a Black Oak tree on the property and their suggestion to transition the sidewalk in order to
preserve the Oak and the larger Cedar tree. Severson clarified the Tree Commission's recommendations have been
incorporated into the Findings that are before the Commission. He reviewed the proposed bioswale in the parkrow planting
strip and displayed samples of bioswales from a Portland development. Severson stated staff believes the application meets
all the criteria and they are recommending approval with the noted conditions.
Severson was asked to comment on the future development potential for the area where the house is located. Severson
stated there has been some discussion of the City's Parks Department purchasing this property for a future parks connection
to the YMCA fields. He noted at this point, this not certain and depends on whether the Parks Department can obtain the
necessary funding to purchase the property.
Council Liaison Navickas arrived at 7:35 p.rn.
Miller expressed concern with the additional vehicle trips per day that would be created by the 60 new units and asked if staff
had considered the traffic impacts. Severson clarified the original subdivision approval included a traffic study and outlined
necessary street improvements to accommodate 135 units. He stated these same improvements will occur with the
development of this property, even though the number of units has been reduced.
48
Marsh requested additional clarification on the proposed trail system through the property. Severson stated the intention is for
the trail connection to the YMCA to go in during the development of Lot 1. Marsh asked about the possibility of an interim
connection. Staff noted this lot will be under the ownership of the City and staff could work with the YMCA on this possibility.
Severson briefly commented on the street improvements and clarified the sidewalk would be required even if the right turn
lane goes away.
Applicant's Presentation
A revised planting plan was distributed to the Commission.
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Project's RepresentativelMr. Knox introduced Landscape Architect Laurie Sager, Jason Elzy
and Betty McRoberts with the Housing Authority, Civil Engineer Mark Kamarath, Project Architect Dan Horton, and Wetlands
Specialist Lee Brennan.
Mr. Knox presented a site plan illustrating the street system, parking system, and context of the property in relation to the
surrounding neighborhood. He clarified the revised planting plan includes a community garden, which is a concept that came
out of the Tree Commission's review of this project. He also clarified they have no issues with adjusting the location of the
sidewalk, as requested by the Tree Commission, to protect the Oak tree.
Mr. Knox commented on the goals of this project, and stated this application meets all of the requirements that have been
imposed. He noted this project is 100% affordable housing and commented on the efforts of the Applicant to go above and
beyond the City's requirements in terms of wetland improvements, bioswales, and storm water quality. Mr. Knox noted the
common lawn area and playground on the site plan, and stated this is the where they would like to install the garden beds. He
commented that the buildings themselves are attractively designed, are oriented to the street, and respect the human scale.
He noted almost all of the units have porches, and all of the units have sidewalks that lead from the street to the buildings. Mr.
Knox commented on the improvements along Clay Street. He noted the possible future connections and felt the temporary
connection suggested by Commissioner Marsh was a great idea.
Lori Sager commented on the tree removals, and stated they believe they can reduce the number of removals to 11 and
preserve the Black Oak as suggested by the Tree Commission. She clarified 2 of the trees proposed for removal are dead,
and stated they have proposed the installation of 130 trees for this project, even though only 76 are required. Ms. Sager also
provided a brief overview of the proposed enhancements of wetland area.
Jason Elzy commented on the pedestrian connectivity throughout the project and the livability of the building design. He noted
the Housing Authority has been working on these types of projects for over 20 years and feels they have a good handle on
what works and what doesn't.
Public T estimonv
Yehudit Plattl862 Michelle Ave/Commented on the number of rental properties currently available in Ashland and questioned
whether this project was appropriate at this time. Ms. Platt expressed her concern that the small pieces of natural area in
Ashland are being bought up, paved over, and developed. She stated the nature of Ashland is being transformed and feels it
is turning into a congested town. She felt that more public outreach should have been done and asked if there are other
options besides putting in 60 more units.
Marsh clarified this project satisfies the R2 zoning requirements for density, and this is not at issue tonight. .
Greg Gargus/400 Clay Street/Commented on the petition to save the trees that was circulated during the previous
subdivision approval. He asked why these trees are not being taken into consideration now, and stated the proposed road
could be jogged around the trees without a lot of effort. Mr. Gargus stated he is not opposed to affordable housing but thinks
this project could use some modification.
Cate Hartzel1l881 E Main StlStated she is a Housing Authority board member and is very proud of this project. She
addressed the tree removal issue and noted the previous approval had proposed to remove 8 trees, and this proposal is to
49
remove 11. She stated if anyone has concerns with this they should query the age and condition of the tree, and noted the
additional landscaping that would be installed. Ms. Hartzell noted the previous traffic study that was completed and noted it
was based on a more rapid buildout of the property than is currently proposed. She voiced her support for the proposed
enhancement of the wetland. She also indicated the number of rental properties currently available in Ashland reflects what is
happening throughout the country and does not believe this will be sustained into the future. She stated this project goes a
long way towards sustainability efforts and encouraged the Commission to approve this project.
Albert Pepe/321 Clay Street/Stated he likes this proposal better than the previous project, but feels they have an opportunity
to create a more sustainable project. Aside from the housing development, he suggested using the remainder of the land for a
farm/garden project. Mr. Pepe suggested other concepts be included in the project, including orienting the buildings for a more
passive solar design and incorporating a water catchment system. He recommended the Commission rethink the overall
scope and design of this project.
Ruth Alexander/2645 Butler Creek Road/Indicated she was speaking on behalf of the Ashland School Board and
commented on the enrollment problem in Ashland. She stated there is not enough affordable housing in Ashland and families
are not moving here. She stated the location of this project is perfect and noted its close proximity to the various surrounding
schools. Ms. Alexander noted the results of a demography study completed by the School District and stated there is a good
chance the School District could see an increase in enrollment if more affordable housing was available in Ashland. She
asked that the Commission approve this project and stated it will help the town and help the schools. [An except of the
demographer's report was submitted to the Commission]
Heidi Parker/344 Bridge Street/Read aloud a letter from the Ashland School Board. The letter voiced the School Board's
support for this project and noted their awareness of Ashland's shortage of housing for working families. It stated Ashland has
been experiencing declining enrollment for nearly a decade and the most recent demographic report cites the lack of
affordable housing in Ashland as a major contributor to this problem. The letter voiced support for the location of this project
and noted its close proximity to local schools. The School Board letter voiced support for the Housing Authority in its endeavor
to bring this project to fruition and encouraged Oregon Housing and Community Services to provide the essential funding to
make it a reality.
Ms. Parker clarified the demography report was completed last year, and the number of available rental properties in Ashland
was taken into consideration.
Jody ZonnensheinnS Brooks Lane/Stated her main concern, aside from what has already been said, is about the wetlands.
She stated wetland area was destroyed when Abbott Street was put in, and stated protecting the wetlands for the future does
not include building right up next to them. Ms. Zonnenshein stated the wetlands will not last if you build all around them and
asked the people involved with this project to pay close attention to this issue.
Bernice Koch/60 Crocker StreetIVoiced her concerns regarding increased traffic. She stated there is already a speeding
problem in this area and stated an increase of 100-120 vehicle trips per day will also affect Abbott Street. She added Abbott is
a very narrow street and should not be used as a major thoroughfare. Ms. Koch also voiced her concerns regarding the
protection of the trees and wetlands.
Stan Druben/12S Brooks Lane/Agreed that there needs to be a better demographic mix in Ashland, but stated there are
better ways to create affordability than this project. Mr. Druben noted the Applicant's request to cut down 3 additional trees
and questioned what this projects overall impact on the environment will be.
Joyce Woods/2308 Abbott Street/Stated Abbott Street has no posted speed limit, no crosswalks, no stop signs, and is
becoming more of a thoroughfare. She stated Abbott is just wide enough for two cars to pass and expressed her concerns
with how this project will impact this situation. Ms. Woods asked the Commission to not just consider the traffic impacts of the
development itself, but also the movability around the project. She also questioned how the water flow into the existing
wetlands would be impacted and voiced her concerns with the tree removals.
50
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Stated the Planning Commission needs to reassure applicants that if they bring in a
project that includes structures up to the allowable height limit, it will be approved. He noted this projects two-story building
design and felt, in general, structures up to the height limits would allow for more open space and would be a more efficient
use of the land.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Commented on some of the issues raised in the public hearing. He stated this project should be well known
throughout the community and noted the numerous meetings that were held during the annexation hearings. In regards to
jogging the location of the street, he stated this option was evaluated and was determined to not be a viable option. He noted
they addressed this issue with the Tree Commission and received unanimous approval for the current layout. Mr. Knox
clarified a number of the comments made tonight have already been addressed and noted the difficulty in getting to all the
details in the time allotted. He encouraged the Commission to support this project and stated it meets all of the criteria.
Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Questions of Staff and Leaal Counsel
Staff was asked to comment on whether there is a buffer around the wetlands. Mr. Severson explained the previous
subdivision approval had the development right up next to the wetlands, however in this proposal the wetland is on its own lot
protected by City ownership. In addition, there is a 30 ft buffer.
Mr. Severson clarified all 60 units would be deed restricted affordable rentals. He also commented on the potential traffic
impacts and noted this project has a lesser impact than what was originally approved. In addition, the City's Engineering
Department reviewed the current proposal and did not indicate any issues. He noted the proposed right turn lane would be
installed before occupancy of these units, unless the median on Ashland Street is installed which would negate the need for
the turn lane. Mr. Severson commented on the concern raised about increased traffic on Abbott Street, and noted the
reserved space on this property that has been set aside for a future east-west connection. He clarified this is not part of this
proposal, but is something the Council wanted to see happen.
Staff commented on the development potential for Lot 1. Mr. Severson explained this lot could be developed with 47 units,
which would bring the entire property to 107 units and be consistent with the previous approval. However, if the Parks
Department acquires the land, there would be approximately 1-acre left for housing. And since 47 units is too many for 1-acre,
this would likely need to come back for modification at that point.
Mr. Molnar noted the questions raised by the Commission in regards to the traffic study and wetlands, and encouraged them
in the future to ask these types of questions when the Applicant and their professionals are before them, since it is ultimately
the Applicant's burden to satisfy their concerns.
Deliberations and Decision
Marsh asked each of the commissioners to cite their major and minor issues.
Mindlin noted the basic concept of this project has already been approved by the City Council and their decision criteria is
fairly slim. She stated she is disappointed that a project of this size does not have solar orientation, and has concerns about
the traffic impacts and the overall need for this type of development, but stated this is not under their purview tonight.
Morris cited his concerns regarding the amount of asphalt and parking, but agreed that the proposed project satisfies the
required criteria.
Dimitre shared his concerns with the tree removal and transportation issues and felt this project could have been done
differently.
51
Miller stated she does not believe this project meets the criteria for adequate transportation. She indicated the farmland was
lost as soon as this property was annexed into the City, and said the only way to reclaim some of that land is to have
community gardens.
Marsh commented on the difference between macro and micro planning. She stated a number of the speakers talked to the
larger "macro" issues, however that is not what is being reviewed tonight. She stated it is clear this project meets the criteria,
but recommended an additional condition for the installation of an interim connection to Tolman Creek before the final lot is
developed.
Commissioners Morris/Marsh m/s to approve Planning Action #2009-00043 with the proposed conditions, and an
additional condition for the temporary connection to Tolman Creek before the final lot is developed. DISCUSSION:
Mr. Severson clarified the following language would be added as Condition #10: "Prior to the occupancy of Lot 2, a temporary
bicycle and pedestrian path and any necessary modifications to the gate and fencing be provided across Lot 1 to the YMCA
fields. II Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion
passed 3-2.
Marsh asked staff to clarify the issue of community gardens and open space, since this issue has come up several times
recently. She also requested staff investigate the issue of height limits and what they are communicating to applicants.
Commissioners Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-00043. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dimitre, Marsh, Mindlin, Morris and Miller, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioners Miller/Dimitre m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size, number and materials of signage allowed within
residential and commercial zones.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman delivered a presentation on the Sign Code ordinance amendments. He noted the two prior
meetings where the Commission has reviewed this item, and provided the following list of key changes and options for
consideration:
1) Area Definition: Option 1 calculates the area of a sign as bounded within a rectangle. This is how staff has
historically calculated the area. Option 2 creates new opportunities to consider circles, triangles and other
geometric shapes in calculating the area.
2) Public Art Definition: Mr. Goldman noted the recommendations from the Public Art and Historic Commissions,
and stated Staff's recommendation is to exempt public art from the Sign Code and revise the Site Design Review
standards to expand review of exterior changes to historic buildings to include public art.
3) Construction and Real Estate Signs: Option 1 limits the number to one 16 sq. ft. or 32 sq. ft sign
(residential/commercial), essentially requiring construction sites to aggregate their signs onto one sheet of
plywood. Option 2 permits multiple signs, up to 4, up to the allowable square footage.
4) Wall Graphics Definition: Mr. Goldman clarified currently wall graphics are prohibited, but the proposed
ordinance would allow wall graphics as long as they comply with the sign area limits.
5) Buildings with Multiple Frontages: Option 1 provides an additional 30 sq. ft for buildings with 3 or more
frontages with a maximum of 60 sq. ft. on any business frontage. Option 2 provides an additional square footage
allowance that is half that of the primary entrance for buildings with 3 or more frontages.
Mr. Goldman's presentation also addressed the maximum signage allowance, exempt incidental signs and three-dimensional
signs. He clarified a 3 cubic ft. three-dimensional (3D) sign would count as one incidental sign, and noted all 3D signs have to
52
be located on private property in the current draft. Mr. Goldman also indicated that after further review of the Downtown Task
Force recommendations, the 3 cubic ft. 3D sign limit is applicable to all of the City's historic districts, not just the downtown
area, and the current draft of the ordinance reflects this correction.
Mr. Goldman cited the Staff Report Addendum that was submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting and
clarified in order to have public art on private property, an easement dedicated to the City would need to be provided. He
added public art has to be under the City's control, however it has been discussed that easements could be granted for a
limited amount of time.
Commissioners Miller/Mindlin mls to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Public Testimony
George Kramer/366 North Laurel/Indicated he was a member of the Downtown Task Force. Mr. Kramer voiced concern with
the proposed change to allow wall graphics on historic buildings. He stated these graphics are virtually impossible to remove
from brick buildings, but applicants like to do them because they are inexpensive, and asked that the Commission leave the
prohibition in place. He commented on the 3D sign options and encouraged the Commission to consider Option 2. He
commented on the larger (20 cubic ft.) 3D sign provision and stated the parameters included in the ordinance will alleviate the
issues people are afraid of. He added large structures are expensive and he does not believe they will see many businesses
take advantage of this provision. Mr. Kramer commented on the public art provision and stated "Alfredo" (the statue outside
Wiley's Pasta) is not art and shared his concerns with blending the distinct lines between art and signs.
Steve Colel1323 Mill Pond RdJOwner of Sound Peace. Mr. Cole commented on the Tibetan prayer flags that were in front of
his business for over 10 years. He stated he does not know whether this is a sign or art, but stated these flags are seen all
over Ashland and add to the character of this town. He asked the Commission is there was anyway to allow him to keep his
flags.
Dana BusselllVice Chair of the Public Arts Commission and also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell voiced
concern with the 3D object provision and recommended the Commission proceed with caution on this issue. She warned once
these types of objects are allowed, they cannot be removed, and recommended they make individuals go through the public
art approval process instead.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Proposed the following option to simplify the wording of the additional frontages provision:
"Buildings shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of business frontage; the maximum sign area on
any single business frontage shall not exceed 60 sq. ft." Mr. Thompson added that he would differ to staff's expertise and as
the petitioner for this provision voiced his support for the proposed ordinance.
Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 10: 18 p. m.
Questions of Legal Counsel and Staff
Marsh requested each commissioner outline their issues for staff and the following items were listed: 1) request of staff to
review possible options that would allow the prayer flags, 2) in regards to the additional frontages provision, request staff
consider making a differentiation between multiple businesses in one building and one business that has multiple frontages, 3)
request for staff to provide clarification on the 3D object material restrictions and sandwich boards in non-historic zones, and
4) address how this information in going to be presented to the public in a graphic way.
Commissioners Miller/Marsh mls to continue this hearing to the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
53
CITY Of
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2009
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING. 7:00 pm
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Allison Renwick, James Watkins, Sam
Whitford, Henry Baker, Tom Giordano, Keith Swink, Alex Krach
Absent Commission Members:
Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, absent
Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Planner: Angela Barry; Clerk: Billie Boswell; Planning Manager: Maria Harris; Senior
Planner: Brandon Goldman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Whitford moved to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2008 meeting. Mr. Giordano seconded the
motion. Mr. Swink and Mr. Krach abstained since they were absent from the meeting. The minutes were
approved unanimously by the remaining commissioners.
PUBLIC FORUM: There being no one wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the Public Forum.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lithia Park Historic Drinking Fountain - Don Robertson, Parks Department Director, explained that the
drinking fountain near the lower Duck Pond, dating from the 1920's, had deteriorated and was not
working'. The stone monument, that supports the drinking fountain and the E. K. Anderson memorial
plaque, was also crumbling apart. A donor has offered to pay to replace it with a new frost-free and ADA
compliant fountain and add their own memorial plaque. Mr. Skibby said that E. K. Anderson was an
important historical figure in Ashland and was involved in the original Ashland Mill. The Commissioners
suggested capping the top and leaving the stone memorial and plaque in place and installing the new
fountain nearby. Mr. Robertson said "stand alone" memorials that are not functional are prohibited in
Lithia Park but this one could be considered "grandfathered". He said he would review and take the
comments back to the Parks Commission.
B. Peace Wall Art on City Hall - Melissa Markell, Public Arts Commission Chair, introduced the Arts
Commission members present. Chairman Shostrom asked about the new Public Arts Commission
master plan and asked Commissioner David Wilkerson to clarify their policies and procedures. Chairman
Shostrom also reviewed with the Historic Commissioners the new Public Arts Commission ordinance and
the Type 1, Conditional Use Permit process they would apply for to get approval on the Peace Tile wall
project being developed. Contractor, Darrel Boldt, artist, Jean Bakewell, and tile artist, Sue Springer
described the project to create tiles from the peace flags that had been designed for the Railroad fence
prior to being removed due to vandalism. The proposal was to attach the 200+ tiles to backer boards
designed to be mounted to the wall in a band at eye level between the windows, doors and signs on the
plaza side of City Hall,creating a permanent public art display. The Historic Commissioners unanimously
supported the tile display but the majority did not feel bolting them to City Hall was appropriate or
represented good stewardship of the historically significant building. A couple of the Commissioners did
feel the display could enhance the building if mounted in a less jumbled manner incorporating a more
linear geometric pattern. Several alternative locations were discussed such as in the plaza or on the side
of another, less significant building fa<;ade.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
5~/04/2009
1
CITY Of
ASHLAND
C. Sign Code Revisions - Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, reviewed proposed changes to the Ashland
Sign Code, highlighting the changes that could affect the businesses in the historic districts most
significantly. He asked the Commissioners to evaluation the impact of the changes and make
recommendations to the Planning Commission. Upon review of potential sign changes the Historic
Commission reached consensus that Public Art should not be regulated as signs under the land use
code, however they expressed that the selection of art or locations within Historic Districts should
consider Historic Commission recommendations in the process. The Historic Commissioners
recommended that there be a formalized process by which public art installed on contributing historic
buildings within the historic districts is reviewed by the Historic Commission for historic compatibility and
appropriateness. The majority of the Commissioners were OK with signs painted directly on buildings;
however, Mr. Skibby had some concerns with signs painted on unpainted brick or stone walls. The
majority were agreeable to the provision allowing small 3-D signs to be installed downtown when
reducing the allowable exempt sign area as proposed.
D. Waterworks Landmark Plaque - Ms. Barry showed the new Waterworks Landmark marker that George
Kramer received to replace the original one that disappeared off the Lithia Fountain in the plaza. It was
suggested that it be reinstalled in a ceremony during Historic Preservation week in May. There was
discussion on possibly engraving it to give credit to those instrumental in the restoration of the fountain.
Ms. Barry said she would talk to Mr. Kramer about a ceremony.
E. 2009 Historic Preservation Week - Ms. Boswell reviewed the nomination spreadsheet and nomination
forms with the Commissioners. The Commissioners also agreed to send out invitations to all Ashland
property owners registered on the Oregon National Register list and invite them to hold an open house
tour during Historic Preservation week.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Review Board Schedule
F ebrua
Februa
Februa
Ter ,Keith, Sam
Ter ,Hen ,Alex
Ter ,Jim, Sam
Ter ,Allison, Tom
Ter ,Keith, Dale
B. Proiect Assiqnments For Planninq Actions - No new projects.
BD-2005-
00092,93
BD-2007 -00545
BD-2008-00275
BD-2007 -01764
BD-2007 -00792
PA-2007-01939
BD-2008-00627
BD-2008-01083
PA#2008-00596
PA#2008-01005
PA#2008-01526
165 W Fork - New SFR on hillside Ashle Jensen (project on hold per appl)
637/649 E Main - 2 Additional motel units (Runkel) Anne Hathaway Cottages
281 Fourth St - Noble Coffee Roaster
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
5~/04/2009
Swink
Skibb
Shostrom
Shostrom/Giordano
Whitford
Renwick
Skibb
Shostrom
Swink/Shostro
m
Renwick
Whitford
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I PA#2008-01700 L21 Winburn Way-Conversion to Restaurant (Beam)
I Skibby
J
C. Sinqle F amilv Residential Oesiqn Standards - No report
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA - Mr. Giordano updated the Commissioners on the
Aesthetics Advisory Committee's meeting with OOOT regarding some preliminary goals for the Exit 14 and
Exit 19 overpasses. He shared that there is a strong feeling that these exits are the gateways into Oregon
from California and need to be highlighted. The plan is to combine vegetation and artistic elements with the
structural design. There was also a need to address good separation between vehicle, pedestrian and bike
traffic. Mr. Giordano said there would be a site visit conducted on Wednesday, February 11th.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on March 4,2009 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
5(2/04/2009
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Planning Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Tom Dimitre
Deborah Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
David Dotterrer
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE (Based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations)
Dawkins noted the public hearing for this item is scheduled for the February Planning Commission meeting. He stated this is
the time for the Commissioners to get their questions answers and to raise any issues so that staff knows what needs to be
addressed before this ordinance comes back for approval.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the packet includes a letter from the Public Arts Commission outlining
their issues with the 3D sign provision. He added members from that Commission are here tonight to provide testimony. Mr.
Molnar provided a brief explanation of the Sign Code and stated it is based on where the property is zoned, and then there is
a formula for the overall amount of signage allowed. Then there is a breakdown for wall signs and ground signs, and an
allotment for incidental signs.
Mr. Molnar stated the public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for the February 10th Planning Commission meeting and
noted Staff is in the process of scheduling a combined walking tour with the City Council that will likely be held on February 5th
at 4:30 p.m.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation to the Commission. The presentation included several depictions of
what permitted signage with the current Sign Code looks like, and what it would look like with the proposed changes. He also
displayed several photos of what the downtown area and Siskiyou Boulevard used to look like before the Sign Code was
adopted. He stated the purpose of tonight's meeting is to gather input from the Commission and asked if they had any
questions or comments on the draft ordinance.
Mr. Goldman provided a brief explanation of internal illuminated signs and indirect illuminated signs. He stated internal
illuminated signs can be used outside the downtown area and the sign can have lighting within it, but the lighting mechanism
itself cannot be visible. He added indirect illumination is when light is directed onto the face of the sign, but is not part of the
sign itself. Mr. Molnar commented on neon signs and noted the Sign Code was amended to recognize neon represents the
57
character of a certain period in time, and locations such as the Varsity theater and Palm Motel could maintain or bring back
their neon signage.
Staff was asked to clarify in what ways the proposed ordinance differs from the Downtown Task Force recommendations. Mr.
Goldman stated the provision to limit the use of vehicle signs was added by staff (vehicles parked exclusively for the purpose
of displaying business signage). Another change not recommended by the Task Force but requested by the City Council was
the opportunity for additional business frontages. Lastly, staff is recommending the ordinance include a distinction between
real estate signs and construction signs. Mr. Goldman stated one last item that staff needs clarification on is whether the 3D
sign (3-cubic feet) inside the downtown area is a separate allocation or whether it should be subtracted from the 7 -sq. ft.
allotment. He stated the current draft of the ordinance has this as a separate allocation.
Commissioner Morris asked for clarification on the public art provision. Mr. Goldman explained the ordinance removes public
art from consideration as a sign, and it would no longer be regulated under the Land Use Code. He added public art would fall
under a difference process and different chapter in the Code. Morris questioned which section of the Code would apply if the
Planning Commission required public art as part of a large scale development. Mr. Molnar did not have an answer, but stated
he would consult with the City Attorney.
Morris questioned the 35-ft width provision on page 3 of the ordinance, under "Shopping Center or Business Complex." He
also questioned the language regarding temporary construction signs on page 4, item G, and asked if there was a limit on the
number of signs or just the maximum square footage. Mr. Goldman stated the intent was to limit this to one larger sign per lot.
Comment was made suggesting this language be revised to allow multiple signs so long as they do not exceed the total
allowable square footage. Morris suggested the language on page 5, "Strings of Lights" also be clarified. Comment was made
that they may want to remove the word "incandescent."
Mr. Goldman presented some sign area calculation examples and noted the different options and formulas that could be
utilized. He requested the Commission provide input on which option they prefer. He noted what they are currently doing is
looking at the rectangular shape that bounds the sign, and while a circle or triangle shape could be used as well, staff is
hesitant to expand much beyond this.
Dana Bussell/Public Arts Commission/Noted she was also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell stated the
Public Arts Commission supports the exemption of public art from the Sign Code, but they are opposed to 3D signs outside
the downtown area. She expressed their concerns for 3D signs of significant size and stated it is likely that many businesses
would take advantage of this change. Ms. Bussell stated the object that the Task Force hoped to bring into compliance was
the Alfredo statue outside Wiley's Pasta. She questioned how the size of these objects would be configured and questioned if
the Alfredo statue was too big to fit within the proposed size limit. She noted the desire of businesses located near Exit 14 to
be noticed and urged the Commission to be cautious. She stated once these items are in place it will be difficult to have them
removed. Ms. Bussell suggested an alternative is to recognize the item that prompted this amendment (Alfredo) is not a sign
and should not be treated as such.
David Wilkerson/Public Arts Commission/Noted he is also a local architect and is familiar with the City's Sign Code. Mr.
Wilkerson voiced his concerns with the unintended consequences that the Task Force recommendations would allow. He
stated the City is not allowed to limit the sign content and stated the current ordinance is what has prevented the visual clutter
that you see in Medford. He stated the Sign Code has helped to maintain Ashland's charming environment and encouraged
them to take another path. Mr. Wilkerson suggested if these items are considered public art, they could be subjected to a
separate process and thinks this is a much safer approach. He concluded by urging the Commission to consider the
alternative presented by the Public Arts Commission.
Council Liaison Navickas indicated that the City Council was reluctant to the 3D allowance outside the downtown area, but
wanted the Planning Commission's opinion before they moved forward.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUST AINABILlTY WORK GROUP
Commissioner Mindlin presented an update of the Sustainability Work Group. She commented on the Planning Commission's
decision to make sustainability a priority this year and stated the two paths the Group wanted to look into were: 1) what is
58
going on in the community, and 2) what are the other local governments doing. Mindlin commented on how they went about
gathering this information and their decision to not take the public hearing approach, She noted the ongoing meetings that
were held at the Ashland Library and noted some of the regulars who attended those meetings are also here tonight.
Mindlin reviewed the questionnaire that was used by the Work Group during their telephone interviews and clarified most of
the interviews took 30-45 minutes and the individuals were anxious to share their input. Mindlin commented on the different
sustainability frameworks that are utilized and commented on how her contacts were formed, She noted they ended up with
300 contacts and were able to inventory 150 of them,
Mindlin stated that Ashland has been considered a leader in sustainability for a long time, and a lot of this has to do with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, She noted some of the cities who are working on sustainability plans, and clarified a lot of this
reference material has come from California, Mindlin commented on Portland, Oregon and noted the recent merging of
Portland's Bureau of Planning with the Office of Sustainable Development. She shared some information from the City of
Portland's website and what they are doing to support sustainability.
Mindlin provided an overview of the information gathered by the Work Group, which was submitted to the Commission at the
beginning of the meeting, The sustainability inventory submitted by Mindlin was separated into the following categories: 1)
Nature Stewardship, 2) Built Environment, 3) Transportation, 4), Recycling & Reusing, 5) Energy, 6) Education and Culture, 7)
Health & Spirituality, 8) Economics and Business, 9) Local Government, 10) Community Connections, 11) Food Resources,
and 12) Youth,
Mindlin noted the work of Triple Bottom Line for the 21st Century and THRIVE, She stated Ashland has a program for certifying
Green Businesses which is administered through the Conservation Department. She also commented on the efforts of the
Ashland Chamber of Commerce, Mindlin noted the Work Group prioritized contacting Ashland based businesses and stated
80% of those inventoried are Ashland based,
Mindlin provided a brief overview of the work being conducted by Lomatski. She also commented on Willow Winds, the
Wilderness Charter School, and stated Southern Oregon University is listed as one of the Top 20 Green Colleges by the EPA.
She noted the Sentient Times, Plan-It You, Heart Circles, and Transition Town. Mindlin commented on the need for
intergenerational dialogue. She stated there are a lot of young people in the community that want to make a difference in the
world and stated Ashland needs to think about what it can do to keep our young people here,
Mindlin commented on how this inventory might be accessed, including a possible database housed on the Chamber of
Commerce website, She commented on how the information is organized and noted a lot of things did not fit within the City's
Comprehensive Plan, including food security and sustainable food resources, Mindlin commented on the huge upwelling of
sustainability projects that were started in the past year and stated people are really concerned and want to find out what they
can do, She stated when individuals were asked what three issues were of most concern, she received a variety of responses,
However the most common responses were: 1) solar orientation, 2) rainwater catchment and infiltration, 3) food security, 4)
city land for community gardens, and 5) clustering housing on farms.
Comment was made questioning what the next undertaking is for this Work Group, Mindlin stated that her sense is that the
Planning Commission as a whole needs to take this issue up at a future meeting and discuss where they would like to go from
here, She noted the City Council usually sets their annual goals in the spring and this might be something that comes up in
that context.
CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Draft Plan, The presentation
outlined the elements in the Plan, including the following:
· Locations of the Office & Employment District, Compatible Industrial District, Neighborhood Center, and Open Space
. Traffic Circulation
. Street Framework
59
· Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework
· Transit Framework
· Parking
Harris indicated the next steps for this project includes an update to the City Council on February 17, 2009, and then the City
will take the Plan through the local land use process for adoption, She noted this project is similar to the North Mountain Plan
and the City will need to draft a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted if any of the Commissioners wish to look at
the full Draft Plan, it is available on the City's website,
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
60
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p,m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins, Chair
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Michael Church
Torn Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Member~:
None
Counc.il Liaison:
Eric Navickas
,-
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the public hearing on the Water Resource Protection Zones
Ordinance has been rescheduled to the March 3, 2009 City Council meeting, He also noted staff would be presenting a brief
update of the Croman Mill. Redevelopment Plan at the February 3, 2009 Council meeting.
C6rTlrf1is~ion Chair Dawkins requested the Commission save a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss absenteeism
on the Planning Commission,
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
B. Approval of Findings for 232 Vista Street, PA #2008-01517
Commissioners Church/Mindlin mls to approve the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote:
Commissioners Dawkins, Morris, Miller, Marsh, Mindlin and Church, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer,
ABSTAINED. Motion passed 6-0.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners in regards to 232 Vista Street.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris mls to approve the Findings for 232 Vista Street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Church, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris, and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer, ABSTAINED. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
61
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Commented on the increased amount of cigarette butts discarded on City streets now that
smoking is banned in restaurants and bars, Mr. Roth recommended the City provide and maintain outdoor cigarette
receptacles in the downtown area and stated these could be emptied each week along with the regular trash pickup,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01984
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement", (the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan.
Mr, Molnar explained the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the Participant's Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute, and issue a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they should sign the
Agreement. He provided a brief overview of the Regional Problem Solving process and noted five of the other communities
involved have already signed the Agreement. He clarified that by signing, the City is not adopting the Regional Plan, but rather
is agreeing to send the Plan through Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan amendment process, Mr, Molnar noted a
recommendation from the Planning Commission is required because this is a land use decision and therefore needs to go
through the City's normal process, which includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission,
Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the elements in the Agreement and stated it is Staff's opinion that the Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute, He noted the City did not identify any urban reserve areas and instead plans to accommodate
increased population by utilizing existing lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, Mr. Molnar commented on his experience
with the Ashland Planning Department over the last 20 years and noted the importance of Ashland being a participant in
regional planning, He commented that Ashland's approach to planning has often been viewed as different from the rest of the
valley, and noted at times there has been frustration within the community when the City's accomplishments are diluted by
other actions occurring in the region, He stated this is Ashland's opportunity to not just influence change within our community,
but also among the other jurisdictions in the valley, Mr, Molnar stated the Agreement represents the City's solidarity with the
other participants in letting the Plan go through the County's process, He added there would be an opportunity for the City and
the other participants to present comments and concerns during the County's land use process.
Mr. Molnar introduced City Councilor Kate Jackson, who is also the Chair 9f the RPS Policy Committee, Councilor Jackson
elaborated on her involvement with regional planning and expressed her hope for the City to continue its current level of
involvement. Jackson explained tonight's decision is whether the City should sign the Agreement and remain a participant with
the project. She noted the Regional Plan will need to go through the County's land use adoption process, and individual cities
that have identified urban reserves will need to take those changes through their own Comprehensive Plan amendment
processes, Jackson clarified this Agreement would coordinate these land use changes into a standard timeframe,
The Commission opened the discussion and shared their preferences and concerns regarding the signing of the Agreement.
Miller applauded Councilor Jackson for her efforts, but expressed concern with the wording "agree to abide by a Plan" which is
contained on page 3 of the Agreement. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission is charged with
reviewing the Agreement for consistency with the RPS statute, He stated the Agreement does not adopt the Draft Plan, but it
does agree to submit it through the County's land use process and agrees that Ashland will abide by and make consistent
Comprehensive Plan amendments to what is adopted by the County, Jackson added that any group or City can testify for or
against the elements of the Plan at the County's public hearings. If the adopted Regional Plan is found to be unsatisfactory to
a particular City or group, they can appeal the County's decision under the standard land use law,
Council Liaison Navickas noted the comments that were submitted by the City Council in November 2007 and expressed his
disappointment that they have not received a response. Councilor Jackson indicated the Council's comments were addressed
and are available for review on the Rogue Valley Council of Government's website,
Dawkins questioned what would happen if Council signs the Agreement and the City ends up disagreeing with the outcome,
Mr. Appicello clarified the City has not designated any urban reserves, and signing the Agreement empowers the City to have
62
a place at the table and a say in the process, He stated if the City signs the Agreement, we will need to participate in the
public hearings in order to protect our point of view. He added participation in this process is the only way the City will be able
to influence what is going on in the other jurisdictions.
Dimitre noted "Section XII: Termination of Participation" on page 15 of the Agreement. He stated the City of Jacksonville
decided not to sign the Agreement and asked for clarification of that decision, Councilor Jackson indicated the City of
Jacksonville took the position that the Agreement did not need to be signed until after the Regional Plan is adopted, She
provided a brief overview of how the Agreement was developed and stated a signed Agreement is necessary at this point to
identify which groups are participating. She added it is her belief that this is the best way to submit the Plan to a public process
and to make further adjustments.
Comment was made that because Ashland did not identify any reserves, they have nothing to lose, Navickas disagreed and
stated if the City ever wanted to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, they could not do so without going through an
amendment process,
Miller noted the Council has already expressed their support and asked if there was any legal reason why this Agreement had
to be signed prior to the Plan being developed,
Trish Bowcockl705 East C Street, Jacksonville/She stated she does not oppose Regional Problem Solving or the draft
version of the Plan, but opposes the process, Ms. Bowcock said the City is being asked to sign a legally binding contract and
at this point nobody knows what the Final Plan will be. She stated if they do sign the Agreement and are unsatisfied with the
Final Plan, the only way to avoid implementing it is to abide by Section XII, which subjects the City to strong disincentives, Ms,
Bowcock claimed the statue does not suggest that this Agreement needs to be reached before the Plan is finalized, but rather
is only needed prior to the adoption of the Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, She added if a
Participants Agreement is needed at this stage in the process, a much simpler agreement should be drafted,
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Expressed concern with the City signing the Agreement and questioned what they were
agreeing to, He disagreed with the inevitable doubling of population and stated the Agreement before the City is too vague,
Mr. Roth voiced his appreciation for Staff's optimism that Ashland's values would rub off on the rest of the County, but does
not think this will happen, He stated regional planning is conceptually a good idea, but does not believe it is a good idea for
Ashland to sign the Agreement.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Allocated his time to Greg Holm~s,
Greg Holmes/235 NW 6th Street, Grants Pass/1,000 Friends of Oregon/Expressed concern with the process and the
Agreement itself, Mr, Holmes voiced his objections to agreeing to the outcome of a process that has not been completed yet,
and noted once the Agreement is signed, they would not be able to remove themselves from the process without sanctions
being imposed. He noted two other RPS processes in Oregon that made it further along in the process than they are now, and
neither one had an agreement in place before they started their hearings. He indicated there is nothing in the statute that
states the Agreement needs to be signed at this point in the process, and stated they can go forward with the regional
planning process without this Agreement in place, Mr. Holmes stated there are significant flaws in the Agreement and feels
that it incorporates the Regional Plan, He stated the goal is not to try and stop RPS, but rather for the public hearings to be
held before the participants agree to abide by what is ultimately decided,
Mr. Holmes clarified his belief that the statue indicates agreement needs to be reached by the participants prior to the Plan
being adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, He also claimed some of the cities who have already
signed the Agreement did so because they would be getting things out of this Plan that they would not get from the normal
process,
Councilor Jackson disagreed with Mr, Holmes assessment that the Agreement does not need to be signed until the Plan is
ready for adoption by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, She clarified this Agreement sets forth the "how"
63
and the structure for implementation, and the details of the Plan will be decided through the County's land use process, She
added any City can and likely will appeal the County's decision if they do not find it satisfactory,
Commission Chair Dawkins closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.rn.
Comment was made questioning when the Policy Committee anticipated individual cities would hold their public hearings, Mr.
Appicello clarified the official process is the County's land use process, and the City could hold hearings at any time to decide
what they would like to present at the County hearings,
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris mls to recommend the City Council approve the RPS Participants Agreement.
DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified the Regional Plan will only address the three problems that have been identified. Miller
expressed her concern that the Agreement is too binding on the individual jurisdictions and feels the Plan should be finalized
before they agree to it. Dotterrer commented that this is a two-way street, and voiced his support for the City being involved in
this process, He stated he agrees with the intent of the Agreement, and noted the need to have general consensus before you
enter a planning process. Marsh voiced her support for regional planning and although there is some risk, she stated
Councilor Jackson's involvement with this process provides her a level of comfort, She recommended if the Council approves
the Agreement, that they schedule a public hearing in order to gather input on the Plan, and that they insert into the regional
process an affirmation by the participants at the end. Dawkins noted his opposition to the draft Plan in regards to the City of
Central Point. Church noted that each city is giving up some level of autonomy and stated it makes sense to have this type of
Agreement in place at this point in the process, He added the process needs to have some momentum going forward and
thinks this process would self destruct at the end if they all waited until the Final Plan was completed before they agreed to
participate, If the Agreement is signed, Morris encouraged the City to push their concepts, otherwise Ashland will be stuck with
what everyone else decides, Dimitre stated he has a problem agreeing to this because it is not clear what they are agreeing
to, He stated he is not against the idea and the process, but feels this Agreement is premature,
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer mls to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council hold a public
hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County's planning process, and that the Council
recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process for explicit affirmation by the
participants at the end of the process. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the public hearing would be for citizens to provide
input on the substance of the Plan itself, Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Dawkins, Morris, Church and Marsh,
YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-3.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Church, YES. Commissioners
Miller, Dimitre, Mindlin, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
Commissioners DimitrelMindlin mls to recommend the City Council not sign the RPS Participants Agreement. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and
Morris, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01986
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2915 Highway 66
APPLICANT: Myles Comstock
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of a previously approved Site Review (PA#2008-01315) for a
Variance to exceed the maximum 20-foot height limitation in the Airport Overlay Zone. The proposed structure is
26.5 feet in height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1E 13B; TAX LOT: 2005
Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings,
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners,
Staff Report
64
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson presented the Staff Report, She explained in September 2008, Staff administratively
approved a request to construct a 3,000 sq, ft, single-story building, which was proposed to be 20-feet in height. This is a
modification of that approval to allow the building to have an average height of 26,5 ft, Ms, Anderson noted all other aspects of
the previous approval will stand, however there would be a few small changes to the storefront entry in regards to the doors
and windows, She explained the height limitation imposed by the Airport Overlay Zone is 20 ft" however the City's Airport
Master Plan and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would allow for a much taller structure in this location, She noted
the City's Airport Commission has reviewed this modification and their letter of approval is included in the record, Ms,
Anderson stated Staff feels the height modification would result in a positive change to the buildings design and they are
recommending approval of the request.
Ms, Anderson provided a brief overview of the FAA's calculation for building heights, and clarified this is determined case by
case based on the structures height, elevation and proximity to the runway, Community Development Director Bill Molnar
commented briefly on the Airport Overlay Zone and explained this provision has not been revisited since the Municipal Code
was codified in 1982. He noted the original intent may have been for the 20 ft, height restriction to only apply in an approach
zone, but this clarification no longer exists in the Code, He added it may be beneficial to modify this section of the Code to
make it more site specific and calculated closer to the way the FAA does it.
Applicant's Presentation
Steve Shapiro and Myles Comstock addressed the Commission, Mr. Shapiro explained this site is the location of Valley
Equipment Rental and the modification to the buildings height would allow them to store their taller equipment in a safer
environment. He noted the Staff Liaison to the Airport Commission indicated that based on the FAA calculations, they could
have a 40 ft, building at this location, He stated this property is 2,000 ft, from the runway and they are nowhere near where the
planes circle, Mr, Shapiro clarified the nearby towing company could have a building height of 35 feet and the building
adjacent to this property has a building height of 28,5 feet.
Dawkins closed the record and the Public Hearing at 9:30 p,m,
Public Testimony
None
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dotterrer/Mindlin mls to approve Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Dawkins, Morris, Church, Mindlin, Dimitre, Miller, Dotterrer and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris mls to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church mls to continue to meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion of possible changes to the City's Sign Code based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations.
Commissioner Dawkins noted there are two components to the Downtown Task Force's Recommendations: 1) possible Sign
Code revisions, and 2) issues with public right-of-way encroachments, He clarified the Planning Commission will not be
discussing the right-of-way issues and this will be handled by the City Council. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
noted tonight's discussion will include an overview of the proposed Sign Code revisions, and the Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief summary of the charge given to the Downtown Task Force, which included addressing concerns
raised by local business owners, He stated a number of recommendations came out of the Task Force meetings, however
there was general consensus that the Sign Code has been a benefit to the City. He noted Ashland's downtown area is a
nationally registered historic district and it is common to have regulations for signs in these districts. Mr. Molnar clarified the
Planning Commission is being asked to focus on the Sign Code recommendations, and the second phase to this process
65
which includes review of encroachments on public property will be handled by the City Council at an upcoming meeting, He
noted the goal is for the Commission to have a recommendation ready for the Council by March so the Council can hear these
two issues jointly,
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the recommendations that came from the Downtown Task
Force, These recommendations included amending the Sign Code to permit the following:
. An additional exempt incidental sign allowance (3 sq, ft)
. Small three-dimensional (3D) signs in the Downtown area (3 cubic ft,)
. Larger 3D signs outside the Downtown area (20 cubic ft,)
· Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs
. City installed identification signs
. Increased projection distance for signs
The Task Force also recommended the Sign Code include a definition for "public art", and allow additional business frontages,
Mr. Goldman's presentation provided examples of different sign types, as well as further clarification of exempt incidental
signs, the 3D sign provision, and the portable sign provision, He also clarified how the proposed ordinance would treat signs
consisting of block letters or irregular shapes and stated the square footage would be determined by measuring the entire
area within the perimeter of the sign,
Dimitre requested Staff provide examples of what the maximum signage amount looks like now, and what it would look like
with the proposed revisions, Mindlin questioned if there was any deviation from the Task Force recommendations to what is
proposed in the draft ordinance, Mr. Goldman noted George Kramer, who was a member of the Task Force, had spoken to
him earlier this evening and indicated it was his recollection that if a business wanted a 3D sign in the Downtown area (3
cubic ft,), this would be subtracted from their incidental sign allowance,
Brent Thompson/582 Allison StreetlWritten statement was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins, Mr. Thompson's
concerns related to additional frontages and he asked the Commission to cease the discrimination to businesses that have
their main entrance on the 3rd or 4th side of a building,
John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Provided input from his service on the Downtown Task Force and commented on how the
Commission should link the work of the Task Force to the Council, so that the City Council does not have to start over when
this issue comes before them, Mr, Stromberg suggested they ask George Kramer to provide input during their discussions and
also recommended they conduct a walking tour so that they can get a good picture of the issues they are dealing with, He
listed some specific businesses that have signage issues and stated he has come to the conclusion that different areas of
town deserve different treatment. He shared his hope that the Commission will look into these issues in detail so that they can
feel confident with their recommendation to the Council.
Mr, Molnar clarified staff is attempting to keep a fairly expedited timeline and the goal is to have these amendments in place
before next summer's season, Comment was made that the Sign Code can be very difficult to understand and requesting Staff
provide ideas of how they would illustrate the requirements, It was stated that the City should have a user's guide, or
something that makes these provisions easy for people to understand,
B. 2009 Hearings Board Assignments
Mr, Molnar clarified the Hearings Board no longer meets every month and only convenes when needed, Commissioners
Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin and Miller all volunteered to serve on the Hearings Board when needed,
C. Planning Commission Attendance
Commissioner Dawkins noted the attendance provision in the "Planning Commission Rules" and requested the Commission's
input on how strictly they would like these requirements enforced, He noted Commissioner Church is planning a four month
66
vacation and asked how the group would like to handle this situation, Dimitre commented on his absences in 2008 and
indicated this will change, Marsh stated that she is not bothered by the occasional absence, and because there are nine
Planning Commissioners, even if some are absent they still have enough members to carry on, She stated that Commissioner
Church's situation is a legal issue and should be left to the Mayor to decide, City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested the
Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to allow the Commission to excuse absences that exceed the 2/3
attendance provision, Comment was made that they may also want to further define "excused" and "unexcused" absences,
Dawkins requested the commissioners submit any further thoughts on this topic to staff,
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p,m,
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
67
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 2. 2008
Council Chambers
] ] 75 E. Main Street
Excerpted Section pertainin2 to the Downtown Task Force Recommendations
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force relating
to employee parking restrictions in the downtown area, proposed changes to the City's
sign code and permissible use of public sidewalk area, and direct City staff to prepare
ordinance language for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City
Council, as necessary?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report that included
background information on the issues reviewed by the Downtown Task Force. These
issues were related to employee parking restrictions in the downtown, sign code and
permissible use of the public sidewalk area.
Pam Hammond, Chair of the Downtown Task Force, Adam Hanks, Permit Center
Manager and John Stromberg, Chair of the Planning Commission presented the summary
report that included the following 9 issues along with recommendations:
Issue # 1: Particularly in the Downtown area, the current limitation of two exempt signs
per business, with each sign not exceeding a size of two square feet, does not seem to
meet the needs of many local merchants.
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three; increase the
third sign from two to three square feet.
Issue #2: The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional statues, caricatures or
representations of persons, animals or merchandise from being used as a sign or
incorporated into a sign structure.
Recommendation: For properties within the Downtown or one of Ashland's four Historic
Districts, allow one of the three exempt signs to be three-dimensional; allow an additional
exempt 3-D sign for properties outside the Historic Districts with a volumetric maximum.
Issue #3: Some businesses, by virtue of their physical location and entrances, such as
smaller side streets and alleys, have limited signage opportunities along the main streets
within the downtown area.
Recommendation Increase the maximum distance that a sign can project from the
building face from the 18 inches to 24 inches.
Discussion on these issues:
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks responded to an inquiry regarding issue #3 and
explained the 24-inch sign could display on the front side of buildings for shops located
down alleyways, etc.
68
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that Council could only regulate time~ place
and manner of signs, not content.
Issue #4: Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition
on off-premise signs, generally consisting of the placement of temporary, movable signs
(i.e. sandwich boards) upon the public sidewalk or other public property. Some
merchants feel that due to specific characteristics associated with location of their
business frontage they lack adequate exposure. Off-premise signage is one means of
drawing attention to the business location.
Recommendation: Create a set of policies and implement guidelines for the placement of
information/directional signs by the City in the right of way or other publicly controlled
property.
Issue #5: The use of the public right of way, for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafes (AMC 6.44), which may not be the most equitable
method for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public sidewalks.
Recommendation: Amend the ordinance to allow any abutting properties (within a
commercial or employment district) the opportunity to obtain a permit for private use of a
portion of the public sidewalk, as long as merchants meet specific public safety and
access standards.
Issue #6: The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what types of
functional objects are encouraged, allowed or legal for placement upon a city sidewalk or
within the public right of way.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance or an appropriate approval process by which
specific functional items may be established upon the City sidewalk. It would be
contingent upon the items meeting City specifications, as well as retaining minimum
clearance, public safety and placement standards. Additionally, Council would direct
staff to explore an exemption to have free use of the shy zone, the area along the sidewalk
within the 12 to 18 inches of the building face, for placement of such amenities as flower
boxes, doorstops, etc.
Issue #7: The proliferation of newspaper and other miscellaneous publication racks
within the downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to installation of newspaper and other
publication racks.
Discussion on these issues:
Ms. Hammond provided examples for Issue 5 explaining merchants could display fresh
flowers, t-shirts, etc.
Concerns regarding regulations for the Sidewalk Sale and cafe tables were noted. City
Attorney Richard Appicello explained they would address permits for the sidewalk sale
when they expire. Ms. Bennett explained that cafe tables would come to Council as a
right of way issue later.
69
Issue #8: Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have
expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and employee
access to the downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the
downtown area.
Issue #9 The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to more
efficiently administer the downtown-parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles that
have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid parking ticket balance of $250.
Develop a final, visible, warning placard to be placed upon a vehicle at least 24 hours
prior to the vehicle being towed. The Task Force does not recommend the use of a
booting/immobilization device over the option of towing the vehicle.
Discussion on these issues:
Mr. Appicello explained that the ordinance would allow noticing for individuals who had
five violations prior to towing or booting the vehicle.
The Task Force identified additional issues for consideration that allocate staff resources
to review sign code amendments every two years and exempt Public Art from the sign
code, sign code review and education.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison St/Submitted a letter from Garrett Furuichi that requested a
modification to the sign code. He asked Council to add an exception that would "allow
signage on the side of the building that is the primary entrance or only entrance to the
business." Currently signs are precluded on the third or fourth sides of a building.
Jeff Compton/770 Acorn Circle/Owner of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. Stated
that the Task Force was too restrictive. The City can dictate what goes outside of his
business but not inside.
George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Encouraged Council to add language to the code that
would allow signs where the entrance to a business was on the side of a building. He
commented that the sign code was complicated but necessary and that the Task Force had
attempted to make it a I ittle better.
Councilor Hartzell asked that Staff reconcile the word "prohibited" versus "exempt" in
Issue 2.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to accept recommendations of the Downtown
Task Force and direct staff to develop a work plan and timeline for developing
implementing ordinance language that addresses Task Force recommendations with
the addition of what was noted by the City Administrator as well as the question
raised about signs on non-dominate sides.
70
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented that the Task Force had accomplished a
lot and it was worthwhile. Councilor Navickas was not sympathetic to the proposed
changes, stating they seemed more a reaction to staff enforcement and Council should be
very careful about creating legislation around these recommendations. Councilor Hartzell
emphasized that the intention was to send the recommendations to the Planning
Commission for another committee review. Councilor Silbiger appreciated the businesses
that complied when informed of their sign code violation. Mayor Morrison said the
purpose for forming the Task Force was to find a middle ground between the need for
regulation and the need to re-examine. The Task Force did a tremendous job even though
not everyone was happy. He complimented Pam Hammond and the committee on
completion of this task.
Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty and Jackson, YES.
Motion passed.
71
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 11,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way, She announced this is the sixth and final meeting of the Downtown Task Force,
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
PUBLIC COMMENT
Art Bullock/Submitted written comments to the group and draft sign code language he prepared. He
commented on the public interests which he feels are not represented in the sign code and explained the two
primary interests are: 1) overwhelming visual clutter, and 2) business window transparency.
Melissa Markell/Public Arts Commission/Questioned if the Task Force would be addressing public art on
private property.
Hammond noted the staff memo distributed on July 17 by City Administrator Martha Bennett and stated the
memo outlined the process for how this issue would be handled. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted they
were going to recognize that art accepted by the City is not subject to the code, and the sign code would be
amended to make this clear. Bussell expressed concern with the lack of discussion on this issue and felt this
recommendation should be further debated by the Task Force.
Kevin Christman/Expressed concern with the prohibitions against displaying art and stated the current sign
code does not permit the display of art to any capacity,
Mr. Appicello explained this issue would be included with the public art policies and procedures that will go
before the City Council in September. Stromberg stated this issue would be debated by the Planning
Commission and the Council, but not this Task Force.
Lloyd Haines/Commented on public art and recommended any language that comes from this group include
an expansive statement so that it does not get construed when it gets to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
J. Ellen Austin/Asked if she was in violation for having art displayed outside her gallery, which is located in
a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Appicello stated residential zones need to be addressed in the sign code; however he does not feel it is
appropriate for the Task Force to handle this issue.
72
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the recommendations to the City Council to include a recommendation to
exempt public art from the sign code and to have its own process developed at a future date.
DISCUSSION: It was noted these two actions will need to be concurrently. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion
passed.
RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION
Mr. Appicello addressed the proposed ordinance amending regulations concerning use of City sidewalks. He
explained the ordinance does not distinguish between residential and commercial use and would allow
individuals to pay the designated rate for use of the sidewalk, He clarified he did not include a list of what
items would be acceptable and stated he only addressed "'who" can lease the space, not "'what" can be placed
there,
Stromberg summarized the Task Force's previous discussions on this issue and stated there were three main
points:
1) The City would have to broaden the sidewalk cafe restrictions in order to allow for other uses, and
the City would apply a market rate charge for use of the sidewalk.
2) Some of the objects placed by merchants in front of their stores were in the public interest (planter
boxes, etc.), and these objects would have to be donated to the City. The City would establish criteria
for this, and there would be no charge.
3) They would allow certain 3D objects that fit within certain size parameters that had some functional
use,
Mr. Appicello stated the public arts ordinance would address the process on how to accept art and stated he
did not see the need to write a regulation on how the City would regulate the placement of items. He stated
there is no obligation on the part of the City to have to accept an item and stated the City can accept
donations and place items where ever they feel is appropriate.
Kramer commented that the intent of this was to allow merchants to beautify their areas. He expressed
concern with the proposed ordinance and stated he does not know why they are creating more rigmarole.
Hammond agreed and stated the ordinance does not accurately reflect the Task Force's desires. Mr.
Appicello shared his concerns with designating "'what" in the ordinance and noted a case that will be argued
in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. Stromberg questioned if there was a way to apply market rates
for part of the sidewalk, by low rates for the "'shy zone." Mr. Appicello stated he understands the group
wants free use of the shy zone for amenities and will try to incorporate this. however he is not certain this is
permissible. Stromberg suggested they make a formal motion in include this piece as part of their
recommendation and ask the Council to direct staff to keep working on this,
Laws/Stromberg m/s to recommend that the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have
free use of the shy zone for amenities (such as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.) Voice V ote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
ISSUES RECAP
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks asked the group to clarify their preferences on a few of their previous
recommendations. The group issued the following clarifications:
1) The additional exempt sign would be applicable to the Downtown area or within one of the four
Historic Districts.
2) The larger 3D sign would be in addition to the existing sign numbers for wall or ground signs.
3) The additional 3D sign would be allowed only in commercial zones outside Historic Districts.
4) The 3D sign will have a specific separate size in addition to the current total square footage.
73
Kramer summarized within the '"historic core," merchants are allowed 3 exempts signs, one of which can be
a small 3D sign. Outside the historic core, merchants are allowed 3 exempt signs, plus one larger 3D sign
that meets criteria yet to be developed.
Mr. Hanks commented on a possible provision regulating the amount of flat surface permitted on 3 D objects
before it starts to count against the permitted signage amount. Kramer suggested a possible limit of 2 sq, ft.
Stromberg recommended they forward this provision back to staff for refining.
Hammond noted the proposed ordinance still includes the booting provision and stated this is not what the
Task Force wanted. Mr. Appicello clarified no changes were made to the ordinance since the group's last
meeting and affirmed that he understands what their recommendations were.
Kramer/Stromberg m/s that despite the language of the proposed ordinance, the Downtown Task
Force recommends eliminating booting in favor of towing with adequate notice before hand.
DISCUSSION: Laws suggested including language that notifies the vehicle owner that additional costs will
be incurred by towing and storage. Municipal Judge Pam Turner expressed concern with the provision that
requires vehicles to be moved to a different block in order to avoid a citation. Mr. Hanks agreed that the City
needs better signage on this. Mr. Appicello clarified his staff has met with the Judge and are working to flush
out some of these practical problems. Slattery noted the importance of placing a large orange sign on the
vehicles 24 hours in advance of the towing. Mr. Appicello clarified this was included in the ordinance. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 3: 15 p.m.
Kramer asked if they could discuss Issue 7, Encroachment Permit Process, and stated sandwich boards on
public right of ways have not been addressed. Hammond stated sandwich boards should not be permitted on
public right of way, only in alcoves which are private property. Mr. Hanks clarified sandwich boards are not
addressed in the sign code and therefore are not currently permitted.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar asked if the group had concerns about opening up the
sidewalks for other uses besides sidewalk cafes. Mr. Appicello added he and Mr. Molnar have been working
on trying to make a distinction to see if limiting the use of sidewalks to sidewalk dining was possible.
Stromberg stated staff previously informed them they could not limit the use of sidewalks to just cafes and
this is the premise they have been working under. He expressed concern that this option was not presented to
the committee sooner. Kramer agreed and stated he did not know this was a possibility. He added he does not
have concerns about rampant selling of merchandise on the sidewalk and stated the City could deal with that
problem when and if it ever arises. Stromberg agreed and felt they should go with what they have for now.
Laws disagreed and stated if they have a choice, they should only allow restaurant tables. He stated he does
not think Ashland would have a desirable appearance if they start allowing these other uses. Mr. Appicello
clarified the Council would likely ask about this option, and staff was merely doing their best to be prepared
for the Council discussion.
Laws noted the email submitted by Brent Thompson and asked why a building can't have signs on more than
two sides. Mr. Molnar stated there are very few businesses in town that have four public streets bounding it
and noted the elements that need to be considered when establishing a business frontage. He commented on
the concerns behind this provision and gave the example of someone calling a loading doc a public entrance.
Compton expressed her concerns with whether this group has really solved the problems. Bussell noted they
cannot solve every merchant's problems and stated these businesses are out of compliance for different
74
reasons. She added this group has been successful in providing additional options to these businesses. Laws
stated the purpose of this committee was not to bring everyone into compliance. Slattery suggested the Task
Force include a detailed statement to the Council that describes the "whys" behind their recommendations.
Hammond proposed forming a small subgroup of the Task Force to form this narrative. Greenblatt stated this
statement needs to be understandable to lay people and stated the community has a misunderstanding about
what these meeting are about.
Stromberg noted they have not found a solution to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory bear, and stated
the bear is symbolic of this whole process. Compton acknowledged that there is no way to allow the bear and
not allow worse things elsewhere. She noted the bench and the bear are located in the shy zone and the only
way to keep it would be to purchase an encroachment permit, which would cost $50-$100 a month. Mr.
Appicello noted staff is attempting to create an exemption in the shy zone for public elements, which would
include the bench, but not the bear. Laws stated he hopes staff will continue to look at a way to grandfather
in objects that were placed after the law went into effect.
Comment was made from the audience suggesting the Task Force remove the minimum square footage
provision and allow merchants free use of the shy space.
Greenblatt questioned if the sign code could be revisited at a later date. Stromberg noted this would
eventually come to the Planning Commission and perhaps they could build in some kind of review process.
Stromberg voiced his support reducing the minimum square footage and stated they should include this as
part of the package that goes to the Council. He noted if the Council has misgivings, they can request
additional information from staff and make a final determination.
Kramer/Laws m/s to revise the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance to have no minimum rental provision, but
rather a processing fee and a per square foot charge. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the alterations in the sign code to be reviewed after it has been in effect for 2
years. Voice Vote: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Bussell, Stromberg, Kramer, and
Shostrom, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed.
WRAP UP DISCUSSION
Slattery commented that there is a huge education element that goes along with this and they need to find a
way to let people know their options. Hammond suggested a statement in the City Source newsletter that
identifies someone in the City that could assist businesses with their signage questions.
Greenblatt questioned if the Task Force would be given the opportunity to tweak the final report before it
goes to Council. Mr. Appicello clarified staff would send out the report to the Task Force members and they
will be given the opportunity to submit comments to staff. He cited Oregon's Public Meeting Law and stated
the members must avoid back and forth dialogue through email and should not be submitting their comments
to each other. Stromberg asked about forming a small subcommittee to prepare a statement to the Council
that captures the reasoning behind their recommendations. It was agreed that Hammond would be able to
form a subcommittee if she feels it is necessary and staff would ensure this was properly noticed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
75
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 4,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 WinbumWay.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Morrison, Mayor
Hammond clarified the group would be discussing Issues # 1 and #2 today, which deal primarily with sign
square footage and how it relates to 3D items on private property. She noted they would be addressing the
right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation to group which reviewed current sign code
allocation examples, exempt sign options, examples of 3D signs, and options for 3D objects and
representations of merchandise.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified there are three types of signs: permanent, exempt, and
temporary. Mr. Hank's clarified businesses are required to go through a permitting process for permanent
signage and commented on how the allocation of signage is determined for business located on second and
third stories.
Comment was made questioning if the 20% temporary signage allocation was "on the table" for possible
revision. Staff indicated yes, and clarified businesses have to change their signs once a week in order for
them to qualify as temporary signage. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the purpose
of the exempt category is to provide businesses with additional flexibility. He noted they are unable to
separate the display of menus from other signage and stated this starts to get into the content issue. Mr.
Hanks noted most businesses can achieve their signage goals and still work within the City's sign code, He
added a lot of this depends on how the business decides to divvy up their signage allotment. He clarified
"dead space" does count towards the total sign square footage, and noted they would normally draw a
rectangle around the wording/image and determine the square footage based on that.
Mr. Hanks asked how the group would like to proceed with exempt signs. Compton questioned if they could
remove the limitations from displaying signage in windows. Laws commented that this would drastically
76
change the sign code. Mr. Molnar clarified this is an option; however, it would create conflicts with other
sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and could cause a domino effect. Stromberg commented that it
seems they are drifting away from their original assignment. which was to recommend some common sense,
minor adjustments to relieve some of the businesses current issues. Shostrom stated that it is difficult to
picture what is legal and what it not, and stated a before and after picture would help determine which is
preferred.
Hammond suggested they come up with a blanket, square footage signage allotment, based on the size of the
building, and allow businesses to use if for whatever they want. She stated removing the exempt and
temporary categories would make things much simpler and easier to understand. Bussell suggested cutting
the sign categories down to two: temporary and penn anent. Stromberg commented that simplifying is an
attractive option, but it presumes that the existing code was not created through a thoughtful process with lots
of expertise. Hammond commented that what they have now is not very enforceable and causes confusion
for the merchants. Stromberg recommended they make modest changes to the existing code and then
recommend that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look into more extensive changes.
Hammond reviewed Issue # 1 and listed the four options for the group. She noted the Task Force tentatively
selected Option 4 at their last meeting, which is to allow one of the exempt signs to be three dimensional, and
asked if they would like to proceed with this recommendation. Kramer clarified Option 4 would create the
opportunity for one, small 3 D sign to be placed on private property, Laws questioned how businesses could
create a meaningful 3D sign that fits into the 1 x 1 x2 sign limitation and voiced concern with business owners
trying to protect what they have instead of thinking of the streetscape as a whole. Comment was made
questioning if this option would apply to just the downtown area or the entire City. Stromberg suggested staff
refine the pennitted size and scale of 3D objects to allow for more flexibility. He recommended a cubic
dimension with minimums and maximums, Shostrom voiced his support for Option 4 with three exempt
signs. Greenblatt noted this option would leave some of the cited merchants out of compliance and
questioned if this would really solve the problem,
PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan, Black SheeplNoted the issues she has faced with signage and stated she has needed each sign that
has been put up. She asked for examples of signage that is pennitted and samples of what compliance looks
like.
Art Bullock, Ashland Resident/Stated there are two primary public interests that the group has not
addressed: 1) the public does not want so much signage that windows look cluttered, and 2) the public does
not want so much signage that you cannot see into the business. He stated he does not think the Task Force
can make small tweaks and be able to address these public interests and stated a more fundamental rewrite is
necessary .
Garrett, Duex Chats/Asked for examples of approved signage and questioned the placement of signs on
multiple entrances.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS (Continued)
Hammond clarified this exempt sign discussion is in relation to the downtown area only. She acknowledged
that Option 4 is not much more than a band-aid and agreed that they should recommend to the Council that
these issues be looked at in depth. Slattery commented that she did not realize the temporary signage
allocation was as flexible as it is. Hammond commented on the possible fonnation of a group (either through
the Chamber of Commerce or the City) that helps merchants deal with their signage.
Stromberg/Kramer m/s to approve Option 4 with 3 exempt signs. DISCUSSION: Stromberg clarified
this motion includes the understanding that they will recommend this be further evaluated by the Planning
77
Commission. Laws commented on the point of this group coming together, and stated it was not to change
the whole spirit of the sign code. Compton questioned if this option would provide enough relief to the
merchants. Ms. Bennett commented on the complexity of the entire issue and commented on who this
specific option would address. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed unanimously.
Kramer commented that the recommendation to the Planning Commission should be a global
recommendation that comes at the end of their work.
Hammond introduced Issue #2 and the related options. Bussell provided some background on Option 3 and
stated Ashland is unique in that it considers art to be a sign. She noted any type of representational structure
is not allowed and wall graphics are also not permitted. Bussell explained the Public Art Master Plan
recommended modifying the sign code to allow for certain types of public art. Ms, Bennett commented on
the rules that govern Oregon and stated Ashland is not the first community to experience problems in this
area, City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified if art is owned (donated) to the City and properly place, it is
exempt from the sign code. Ms. Bennett noted this issues still needs to go through the Public Arts
Commission.
Kramer clarified Issue #2 deals with issues like Wiley's Alfredo statue, Bussell questioned if they are talking
about the entire City. She stated this won't be too much a concern for downtown, since there is not much
space, but noted the areas outside downtown are most likely to have national chains. Kramer felt size and
material limitations would address these concerns. Staff clarified they do not consider sandwich boards 3D
signs. Ms. Bennett clarified Option 4 would not work for Wiley's Pasta because Alfredo comes in every
night. Stromberg suggested they deal with sandwich boards and items like the Alfredo statue separately. Staff
clarified the problems with sandwich boards is more of a right of way issue, which will be addressed next
week. Kramer suggested creating an additional exempt sign opportunity outside the Downtown Design
Overlay Zone that includes allowable material types and size limitations. The group briefly discussed
possible objects this suggestion may open the door to.
Bussell recommended they add a public art exemption for city owned facilities/city property. City Attorney
Richard Appicello was asked to bring back options at the next meeting to address Bussell's concerns
regarding public art.
Stromberg/Compton m/s to create a category for movable 3D signs, that]) are not measured as part of
the total sign allotment, 2) meet certain material and construction standards (to be determined by
staft), 3) fit within a volumetric maximum, and 4) this category would apply to areas outside the
Downtown Design Zone and the Historic Districts.
Stromberg/Compton m/s to amend motion to add a setback from the public right-of-way (for staff to
determine). DISCUSSION: It was clarified this amendment would be added to the original motion.
Voice Vote on motion as amended: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Kramer, Shostrom and
Laws, YES. Shostrom and Bussell, NO. Motion passed 7-2.
Staff clarified the Task Force would be dealing with Issue #4 and the remaining right-of-way issues at their
final meeting next week.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4: 15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
78
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 28,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. Hammond noted several of the members attended a tour of downtown sign issues,
which was conducted prior to the meeting.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
PUBLIC COMMENT
Judy/Shakespeare and Co. Bookstore/Stated she is in a difficult situation because her business is
located down an alley, She explained sales have dropped 60% since the City has prohibited her from
placing the wagon at the alley's entrance and explained that she is doing her best to keep the bookstore
open.
Jeff/ Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory/Commented that the proposed changes are insufficient and
felt more change was needed. He stated businesses can't stay in business if they cannot have something
that lets customers know they are there. He stated customers will not visit a store if that business does
anything '"too tacky" and he does not understand what the task force is afraid of.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Issue #3 - Downtown Businesses with Limited Signage Opportunity.
Hammond read and the issue and the options aloud. She voiced her support for Option 1, which would
change the sign limitation to 24" from the wall and would provide greater visibility for businesses on side
streets/alleys/pedestrian access ways. Mr. Hanks used Shakespeare and Co. as an example and explained
how Option I would allow them to place a sign at the entrance to the alley that would project out from the
comer.
Greenblatt/Compton m/s to accept Option 1 for Issue #3. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Issue #5 - Placing Signage in the Public Right-oJ-Way.
79
Hammond read the issue and options aloud. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Option 2 were
selected, the City would have to establish a program and identify the parameters for a temporary sign
permit process. Slattery suggested they consider City owned signs that don't include business names, but
rather indicate '"lodging" or '"dining" and directional arrows. She stated these could be artistically done
and may encourage people to walk. Ms. Bennett commented that another option would be for the City to
install signs and allow businesses to purchase a spot on that sign. She stated this option would help with
the Blue Giraffe's signage situation and noted a City sign could be placed in the Water Street parking lot.
Comment was made voicing support for a combination that would allow for generic directional
information signs as well as City signs that list specific business information.
Compton/Dotterrer m/s to accept Option] for Issue #5. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
Laws/Kramer m/s to reject Option 2 for Issue #5. DISCUSSION: Kramer stated he is interested in
looking at encroachment opportunities that pertain to all businesses and voiced opposition to creating a
separate authority in this area. Laws felt it would be a mistake to allow temporary signs in addition to
directional signs. Compton commented that if the City decided not to place a directional sign, Option 2
would provide the business owner an opportunity to apply for a permit. It was questioned if the City could
stipulate that this option would only be available if the City does not do Option 1. Ms, Bennett voiced her
hesitations with Option 2. Suggestion was made for the group to table the motion and come back to this
after they have dealt with the encroachment issue. Motion was tabled.
Issue # 7 - Encroachment Permit Process.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Kramer voiced support for a list of approved items that
could be placed in the City right of way . He stated this list of allowable items should be separate from the
items the City would require a permit for. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the legality of
this issue and recommended a process where items would be donated and accepted by the City; and the
City would then decide where the item is placed. He stated the City would only accept items that met
generic durability standards and the individual would need to sign a maintenance and hold harmless
agreement. Ms. Bennett questioned if the City already owned these items and she stated it was her
understanding that if someone places an item in the City right of way, they are essentially donating it to
the City, Laws commented that it would be difficult to come up with a list of approved items and stated
the list would have to be regularly amended. He added that he does not feel a list of approved items would
solve the problem and voiced his support for Option 1. Kramer voiced concern that requiring a permit and
the donation process would stop these types of objects from being placed. Hammond noted that there are
also safety measures to be considered, such as the Black Sheep's lion. Suggestion was made for a two part
process that includes a list of general items that the City endorses and requiring the placement of all other
items to go through a permit process.
Ms. Bennett summarized the group's deliberation and stated they would like to allow for the placement of
functional items and recognize that these will be owned by the City; they are willing to let staff evaluate
whether to establish a donation process or include a general acceptance provision in the code. Ms. Bennett
stated staff could also look into a 3D allowance for functional objects designed to address safety issues
and noted there will need to be criteria established for how to decide on the placement of these objects.
Stromberg/Laws m/s to approve the staff direction as outlined by Ms. Bennett. DISCUSSION: It
was clarified this is not a final decision and this issue would be returning to the group at their next
meeting. Stromberg commented that he views this as enabling certain uses, not prohibiting everything
else, Bussell noted that if someone wanted to donate art there is already an approval process for that. Mr.
Appicello clarified the two processes would work together. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
80
Issue #6 - Newspaper/Misc. Publication Racks.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Comment was made questioning if the City could
completely remove the racks. Mr. Appicello clarified he does not believe completely banning them is
appropriate,
Kramer/Greenblatt m/s to combine Options] and 2 and direct staff to inventory all downtown
newspaper/publication racks and prepare a recommendation. DISCUSSION: Recommendation was
made for the inventory study to indicate their preferences and for it to be referred directly to the City
Council. Kramer and Greenblatt agreed to include this amendment in the motion. Voice Vote: all A YES.
Motion passed.
Issue #9 - Administering the Downtown Parking Program
Ms. Bennett noted the draft ordinance that was submitted to the group and indicated staff needs clarity on
the towing vs. booting then towing options, She clarified the City is not proposing to boot the vehicle and
leave it there until the owner pays, but rather boot the vehicle and have it towed after 24 hours if payment
is not received.
Support was voiced for towing and not booting vehicles. Hammond questioned the dollar amount owed
before the City would take action and suggested raising it from $250 to $500. Ms. Bennett commented on
why the $250 amount was chosen and cautioned them about raising this too high. Greenblatt noted the
provision in the ordinance that states the individual will be noticed 10 days in advance before any action
is taken. Stromberg supported the towing option and stated booted vehicles could take away from the
City's ambiance.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Ashland Municipal Judge Pam Turner commented on the 10 day notice period and shared a few situations
where individuals might not receive the notification. Comment was made suggesting the City affix a
colored placard to the vehicle prior to it being towed.
Dotterrer/Greenblatt m/s to recommend the Ordinance as drafted with the exception of removing
the booting provision. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello suggested the notification period be changed to 14
days. Consensus was voiced for including this modification. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
DISCUSS POSSIBLE AUGUST 4 MEETING
Hammond stated it will be necessary for the group to meet again and asked for the members' preference
on meeting dates. She noted the group could meet next Monday, or meet two weeks from today. Mr.
Appicello indicated he would likely need more than one week to prepare the draft right-of-way ordinance,
The Task Force reached consensus to meet on August 4th and August 11th
Ms. Bennett clarified the Task Force's final report is scheduled to go before the City Council on
September 2, 2008. She noted recommended changes to the Sign Code will have to go to the Planning
Commission; however, the Council could enact the rest of their recommendations. She added the group
will need to complete their work by August 19th in order to make the September packet deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4: 15 p.m.
81
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
82
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
J U L Y 21, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
STAFF PRESENT A TION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks briefly reviewed the nine key issues and options listed in the staff
report.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Roth, Geppetto's/Shared his concerns over what he felt was an overzealous Code Enforcement
Officer and recommended more direct supervision of this City employee.
Graham Lewis, United Methodist ChurchlNoted the church is located on the comer of Laurel and N.
Main, but they are only allowed signage on one of the streets. He stated signage on both frontages would
be helpful.
Steve, Soundpeace/Questioned ifhe would be permitted to place a prayer flag in the garden in the
morning and take it in at night. Regarding the parking situation, he thought this was always voluntary and
not necessarily enforced,
Julie, Wiley's World/Stated she does not view her Alfredo statute as a sign, but rather a piece of art; and
stated the statue needs to be able to come in at night to avoid potential theft or vandalism. She voiced her
support for removing the 3D object prohibition from the Sign Code.
Melissa Markell, Chair of the Public Arts Commission/Voiced her support for Option #4 regarding the
three dimensional sign issue, which would create an exemption for 20 or 3D public art.
83
Susan, Black Sheep/Submitted signature petitions supporting the placement of the lion statue in front of
the Black Sheep's entrance. She stated if they remove the lion it would result in an unsafe doorway and
stated this is a historical building and the entrance cannot be changed.
Lee, Downtown Employee/Stated she received a ticket a few years ago, without warning, after parking in
the same block twice. She stated this is a silly rule and the City should at least put up a sign warning
employees.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted all parking appeals come to her and voiced her support
for repealing or revising the downtown employee parking ban. She stated the ban is very difficult to
enforce and felt the language was over broad,
Lance Pugh, Ashland ResidentN oiced concern with what he felt was staff running the meeting and
directing the focus.
Brent Thompson, Ashland Resident/Voiced his support for the option permitting one additional exempt
sign. Regarding the parking issue, he suggested diagonal parking could be used to create more spaces in
certain downtown areas.
Donna, Webster's/Stated if they change the sign code, they need to make sure it can be universally
applied. She commented briefly on the sidewalk issue and noted they are heavily congested in the middle
of the season.
Mike Morris, Ashland Planning Commissioner/Asked how they would feel if every building had
something out in front of it, and questioned where the limits are.
Ramona, BElla/Stated if they are going to enforce the parking ban, it needs to be applied to everyone.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION & DIRECTION TO STAFF
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Hammond voiced support for Option # 1, which would eliminate the employee parking ban from the
Ashland Municipal Code. She stated the City could still send out a letter each year asking the downtown
businesses to voluntarily comply with the seasonal parking limitations. The Task Force voiced unanimous
consent for this option.
Unpaid Parking Tickets
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City currently handles unpaid parking citations and
stated the City's current enforcement tools are very weak. She stated booting or towing vehicles that have
an excessive amount of unpaid parking violations is one option the group should consider.
The group discussed the option presented by staff. Stromberg voiced his concerns with booting vehicles
and felt towing was a better alternative. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified due process would
occur before anyone was booted and the individual would receive proper notice before this action
occurred. Ms. Bennett listed the outstanding parking citation figures for the group. Laws voiced his
support for booting, and stated this type of action is needed if they have people who simply do not care.
Greenblatt agreed that this needs to have some ""teeth." Kramer voiced his support for the towing option.
Compton agreed, but questioned what the outstanding ticket amount would have to before this action was
taken.
84
Hammond recommended they move onto the next issue and look at this option further at their next
meeting.
Amount of Sign age Permitted
Hammond listed the two options for Issue # I, She stated they could modify the Sign Code to allow for
one additional exempt sign or they could choose to modify the Code to allow the existing exempt signs to
be a maximum of 3 sq. ft.
The group discussed the two options. Shostrom suggested modifying the requirement to allow for two
signs at 2 sq, ft. or less, and one additional sign at 3 sq. ft or less. Kramer recommended they not limit this
to the C-I-D zone, but pennit the additional signage in the entire commercial district. Compton noted that
being able to display menus is not only a benefit for the restaurants, but also the pedestrians. Kramer
suggested they increase the total amount of signage permitted (based on the linear footage of the
building's frontage) and allow businesses to allocate the space as they choose. Compton suggested they
establish two different parameters; one for inside the downtown area and one for outside this area.
Mr. Hanks clarified the current provision which allows businesses to use up to 20% of their window
space for changeable copy. He also provided a brief explanation of how businesses with no windows or
those located on second and third stories are accommodated.
Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with infonnation on the new options presented by
Shostrom and Kramer.
3-Dimensional Signs/Representations of Merchandise
Hammond listed the options for Issue #2 outlined in the staff report. Kramer and Compton voiced their
support for Option 2, which would allow 3D representations as a sign type. Laws expressed concern with
permitting 3D objects, though supported the ones we currently have. He questioned if there was a way to
exempt those that exist today, Slattery voiced her confidence that businesses would do everything
possible to make their business attractive and is not concerned that Option 2 would result in a surge of
undesirable objects.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group supported Option 2.
The Task Force agreed to continue with the meeting until 4:30 p.m.
Limited Signage Access due to Location
Hammond listed the options for Issue #3 outlined in the staff report. Kramer suggested businesses, such
as the Blue Giraffe, with no frontage on a public street be allowed one offsite sign as part of their sign
allocation; however include a provision that this sign could not be placed on public right of way. The
group briefly discussed these options and agreed to come back to this issue at their next meeting.
Use of Right-of-Way for Commercial Use
Hammond listed the options in the staff report. Laws noted when the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance was
passed, its intent was not to benefit the restaurant specifically, but to enhance the ambiance in town. He
felt opening up the use of sidewalks for merchandise was unacceptable and would destroy the Ashland's
appearance. City Attorney Richard Appicello briefly commented on the legal issues surrounding this
85
matter. Slattery commented that sidewalk dining is something the public loves, and suggested they look at
other communities and how they deal with this issue. Kramer noted that selling flowers, fruit or
vegetables on the sidewalk could also add character.
City Administrator Martha Bennett commented on Option 2, which would allow the City to lease
sidewalk space to businesses, and questioned how much merchandise that business would need to sell to
make this worthwhile to them. Comment was made that this would be for the individual business to
decide. Greenblatt noted Greenleaf was the first restaurant to have outdoor seating on the Calle and
voiced support for allowing the City to rent the public right of way, so long as the parameters are
followed. Ms. Bennett clarified the sidewalk space would be only leased to the adjacent business.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group were interested in a combination of
Options 2 and 3.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would do more flushing out of the details on the input provided by the group.
She noted they would pick up where they left off at the next meeting and encouraged interested citizens
and business owners to submit their comments and concerns to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
86
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 14,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Pam Hammond and Mayor Morrison welcomed the group and each member introduced themselves,
PURPOSE & GOALS OF TASK FORCE
Mayor Morrison commented briefly on what prompted the creation of this task force and noted issues
have been raised regarding the City's sign code, use of the public right of way, and the downtown
employee parking ban. He stated the Downtown Task Force would be meeting for three weeks and
encouraged them to focus on addressing the immediate concerns.
OVERVIEW OF TASK FORCE SCHEDULE
Hammond briefly reviewed the meeting agenda. She indicated their second meeting would include a staff
presentation of options and committee discussion; and hopes they can have deliberations and come to a
recommendation by their third meeting.
OVERVIEW OF THREE ISSUES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented an overview of the City's sign code, use of
public right-of-way, and downtown employee parking restrictions.
Sign Code
Mr. Molnar stated the 1966 Central Area Plan called for the development of a sign program and the City's
sign ordinance was officially adopted in 1968. He stated there have been several updates to this section of
the code over the years and noted the 1988 Downtown Plan acknowledged the success of the sign code.
Mr. Molnar provided the definitions of "signs", "exempted signs", and "prohibited signs" and listed the
main compliance issues the City deals with,
Use of the Public Right of Way
Mr. Molnar noted there are many competing interests within the sidewalks and stated the City has
regulations regarding the outdoor display of merchandise. He explained the Ashland Municipal Code
87
prohibits using the street or public sidewalk for selling, storing or displaying merchandise or equipment;
and businesses within the City's commercial zones are required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP)
for the outdoor storage of merchandise on private property. Mr. Molnar noted the City has a sidewalk cafe
ordinance and it is administered by the Public Works Department.
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Mr. Molnar explained the ban was first adopted in ] 985 at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and
the seasonal restrictions were made permanent in ] 986. He explained the ban restricts downtown
employee parking in the downtown parking district between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., May through
September; and listed some of the issues that have been raised by the affected businesses and their
employees.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom, Pasta Piatti & Tabu/Shared his concerns regarding the newspaper racks.
Nola, Renaissance RoselNoted she had been cited by the City and requested clarification on the
ordinance governing the outdoor display of merchandise. She noted the sale of merchandise on
Guanajuato Way and asked about the City's CUP process.
Steve, Soundpeace/Asked if there was a way for current businesses to be "grandfathered in" and require
anyone new to receive approval for the display of items, He agreed with the concerns expressed by the
previous speaker regarding newspaper boxes and suggested there be a maintenance requirement for these.
Steve noted the signage in Boulder, Colorado and suggested the Task Force review the Boulder sign code
for comparison. He also commented on the employee parking ban and noted employees are being issued
tickets when visiting downtown businesses on their days off.
Julie, Wiley's PastaINoted her business is not located downtown and stated they use their "Alfredo"
statue to show customers that they are open for business.
Lenny, CD or not CD/Stated there is a small space in front of his store that he would be interested in
obtaining a CUP for. He commented on the height of his sign and suggested they allow businesses to sell
merchandise outdoors on weekends only. He stated it is possible to have attractive sandwich signs,
newspaper boxes, and neon signs; and suggested the City form a review board to determine what is
aesthetically pleasing.
Dave, Endless MassageINoted that his is a newer business and commented on the use of sandwich
boards to attract business. He stated his board did obstruct people walking and stated it made a big
difference in bringing people into his business,
Susan, Pilaf/Questioned why people dressed as the Statue of Liberty or dressed in sandwich boards does
not go against the sign code. She stated that parking is one of her major stressors and explained that she
often has to come and go several times a day from her business,
Kate, Earth Friendly Kids/Stated being unable to put merchandise out in front of her store has made
them struggle financially and believes the City is hurting the vitality of the town by making such strict
rules.
Ramona, B EllalNoted her store has no back entrance and all of their supplies have to come through the
front door. She questioned the fairness of the parking situation and asked if downtown employees who
work at night are being ticketing as well.
88
Jimmy, Blue Giraffe Spa/Noted their building is set back from Water Street, behind the parking lot and
customers cannot see his sign from the street. He stated he receives a lot of complaints from clients
because they cannot find his store. He suggested the City have some sort of hearings process to deal with
unique situations like his own. He also questioned putting up a small sign similar to Pilafs or Iris Inn's
signs,
Don, Ashland Springs Hotel & Larks/Stated he was cited for placing the building's original sandwich
board in front of the hotel and noted the challenge of educating guests on what they offer. He stated that
inadequate parking in Ashland is a big issue and noted the parking garage is consistently full.
Mike Morris, Planning Commissioner/Recommended the sign ordinance be removed from the Land
Use section of the Municipal Code and recommended they set criteria for a variance. He suggested
different requirements be set for areas outside of downtown (at least until these areas become more
populated be pedestrians) and recommended they establish maintenance requirements for newspaper
boxes.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted that she handles the City's parking violations and stated
the intention of the employee downtown parking ban is not to prohibit employees from visiting businesses
on their time off. She encouraged everyone to read this section of the code (AMC 11.30.020).
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified 95% of the businesses have complied with the City's
requirements and stated she would like to continue to work cooperatively with the businesses while this
process ]S gOIng on.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented briefly on the concept of grandfathering. He clarified the
City is required to treat everyone equally and does not believe grandfathering is an option.
Mayor Morrison clarified that public testimony will be included in this process and encouraged the
businesses and members of the public to submit their information to the Task Force.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated staff would be preparing white papers and submitting them
to the group within the next few days. She recommended they inform staff if they are in need to additional
information or if there are options they are leaning toward, She agreed that parking in Ashland was a
valid concern, but recommended they limit their discussion to the employee parking issue.
Clarification was requested on the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to display merchandise
on private property. Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks stated this is a Type I land use action and the
fee is currently $882. He stated the City has seen this type of CUP for larger scale uses, such as the
hardware store, but noted the approval criteria are fairly general.
Mr. Hanks clarified the Iris Inn's sign was obtained through ODOT, not the City,
Sandra Slattery commented that these requirements were put in place for good reasons; however they
need to ensure that Ashland businesses can be successful and stated it is time to look at these regulations
with the current view of the community in mind.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the issue of placing 3-D objects in front of businesses
and clarified they can only limit the time, place, manner and size of these objects, not the content. George
89
Kramer added they could also control the materials they are made of and can require the object to be
maintained,
Ms. Bennett noted the City would be bringing forward options regarding sidewalk cafes, including
options for permitting, regulating, and leasing public right of ways. She clarified the vendors along Calle
Guanajuato lease this space from the City and stated the Task Force could consider creating a similar
provision for individual business to display merchandise in front of their stores.
Don Laws requested the City Attorney prepare a memo that cites the court cases and laws that deal with
grandfathering and the equality of treatment. He stated he would like to know what is legal and whether
the City could make changes. Mr. Laws provided some history of the sign code and stated its intent was
to make Ashland businesses more appealing. He commented on how the sign code has contributed to the
overall success of businesses in Ashland and recommended they be careful about making changes.
Dave Dotterrer suggested the sign code differentiate between private property and public right of way.
Ms. Bennett voiced her support for this suggestion. Mr. Appicello clarified the City could permit larger 3-
D objects on private property than on public right of way.
Dana Bussell commented on the Public Arts Commission's master plan and noted the plan did speak to
some of these issues. She clarified one of the goals of the plan was to change the sign ordinance to allow
for murals, She also commented briefly on the public art jury process the commission utilizes, and
clarified people affected by the object are represented on the jury.
Sandra Slattery noted that there are other communities, such as Carmel, California, that have very
pleasing signage and suggested the group take a look at how other communities deal with this issue. Ms.
Bennett requested the group clarify which cities' sign codes they are interested in, Staff was directed to
look into the sign codes for Carmel, California and Boulder, Colorado, particularly for small, directional
signs. Ms. Slattery noted she would also try to gather information and obtain samples from other
communities that are attractive, high visitor destinations.
Mayor Morrison requested information on newspaper boxes, including what governs their installation,
maintenance, and removal. Additional request was made for how many spaces a publication can have and
whether the boxes interfere with pedestrian and vehicle safety. It was also questioned if the City could
designate certain areas where the boxes would be permitted.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would gather the information requested by the group and stated materials for
the next meeting would be sent out later this week. She noted the next Downtown Task Force meeting is
scheduled for next Monday, July 21 at 2 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
90
After speaking to the Planning Commission at their meeting in February, Public Art Commissioner Dana
Bussell was asked to email her list of concerns to the full planning commission. The following is the
content of the email she sent on February J 4.
****************************
In response to the Planning Commission's desire for more information on the position of the Public Art
Commission regarding 3-D signs, I am providing the following:
I. As stated in the Draft Amendments presented by City Staff on February 10, 2009, "One three-
dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of 50 lineal feet.
This is in addition to the limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground,
awning or marquee signs."
Our biggest concern is the opportunity for additional signs of significant size (20 cubic feet) which
could have blatant commercial messages even though that was not the case with the 3-D object that
was the source of the proposed change (the waiter in front of Wiley's World on Ashland Street).
2. The Draft Amendments of February 10, 2009, state, "No three-dimensional sign shall have a
height, width, or depth in excess of 6 feet.
The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire volume within a
rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of the sign and shall not exceed 20 cubic
feet, Three dimensional signs shall not be constructed of plastic,"
The Downtown Task Force, of which I was a member, intended to have this change in the sign
code bring the waiter at Wiley's World into compliance. It was the only object outside the
Downtown and Historic Districts to be so effected. Ironically, with these sign code changes,
the waiter will still be out of compliance. It is 6 feet two inches tall and will not fit into a 20
cubic foot rectangle. It is made of plastic embedded with glass fibers.
3. With the proposed changes, the following could be allowed:
Mass produced objects
. Objects intended for the mass audience (Bugs Bunny has been cast in bronze)
. Objects that are purely informational in nature with no esthetic content
. Signs that are just fat letters
. Signs that have the sole purpose of attracting attention as opposed to fitting the character of
Ashland.
4. The waiter at Wiley's presents a unique situation that is difficult to address with a blanket
ordinance. The Public Art Process however is designed to deal with unique situations.
91
(1/27/2009) Brandon Goldman - Ashlaflrl Sign Code Amendment - ODOT Comment~
Page 1
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
"ST ALLSWORTH Adam 0" <Adam.O.ST ALLSWORTH@odot.state.or.us>
<goldmanb@ashland.or.us>
"STEPHENS Shawn A" <Shawn.A.STEPHENS@odot.state.or.us>, "PYLES Davidll <0...
1/27/2009 10:48 AM
Ashland Sign Code Amendment - ODOT Comments
At this time ODOT has no concerns with the Ashland City Sign Code
Amendment proposal. The Only point of interest for ODOT would to be
notified of any and all Signs and Banners that would be installed over
or in the State Right of Way. ODOT has no other comments at this time.
Adam O. Stallsworth
Oregon Department of Transportation
Region 3 District 8
White City, Oregon.
92
9-16-08
Soundpeace
1 99 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ashland Planning Commissioner,
I write this letter as the downtown business owner of Soundpeace and as someone who
works and shops downtown.
There is before you a proposal for a revised sign ordinance. One issue that has not been
addressed that relates to Soundpeace is the Tibetan Prayer Flag that we have flown in
front of our store in the garden on private property for years. We have never had a single
comment from a customer or passer by that this flag was in any way offensive. In fact
when we were told to take the flag down we posted a petition in our store asking that the
flag be allowed. Hundreds of people signed the petition in just a few days. Locals and
tourists alike were shocked that Ashland had banned the prayer flag from flying. We
have since submitted that petition to the committee that was formed this summer to
review the sign code.
My understanding after talking with the very helpful Adam Hanks is that the flag would
continue to be banned under the proposed ordinance. I am requesting that you write into
the ordinance a specific exemption for Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flags. Currently the city
permits the American Flag and flags of the City and State. If you can exempt those flags
then why not the Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flag? I am assuming the city has already
exempted the Tree City USA flag that flies at the Police Station and that therefore it is
lawful to specify certain types of flags that are not governmental.
I am hoping that somehow the City of Ashland can find a way to permit a colorful flag in
a garden whose simple prayer is that all beings may be blessed with peace, compassion,
strength and wisdom.
Thanks for your consideration,
Steve Cole
93
1(8/5/2008) Adam Hinks - Chapter 18 Jr -'Jt-
Page 1
_ .___~_._.._,____m_,.._._______.~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
'Wolf Packs, Inc." <traildog@wolfpacks.com>
<hanksa@ashland.or.us>
8/5/082:55 PM
Chapter 18 Input
Dear Mr. Hanks,
I have been a resident of Ashland for nearly 20 years, as well as the
president of a successful mail-order business, I can not attend
meetings, as J live outside of town and am the mother of a young
child. Still, I would like to have my opinion heard and considered in
connection with Chapter 18 regarding the removal of displays outside
of businesses in town.
I have traveled extensively in my lifetime and Ashland has a special
feel, unlike any other place I have seen. Part of this has to do with
the fun and unusual displays, both inside and outside various local
businesses. Wiley's World's standing plaster mascot Alfredo has
greeted countless children and parents for just about as long as that
establishment has been serving their customers. My four year old
daughter always stopped to have a conversation with the lion in front
of Black Sheep, even before she could talk. I have seen the bear at
the Chocolate Factory and the giraffe at Bug A Boo bring smiles to old
and young alike. The toys displayed in front of Earth Friendly Kids
always drew my eye, and I would occasionally stop to buy something
because I saw it while driving by.
This new enforcement requiring the removal of so many creative
displays does nothing but put Ashland into an all too common, mundane
class of cities. By clipping the wings or our small business owners,
the artistic feel of the town is diminished. Supporting our'local
businesses is certainly in the interest of the City of Ashland, as
without the little guy, our town could easily become unremarkable and
common.
Please count this message as three requests (from me, from my husband,
and from our daughter) to allow our iconic friends to once again grace
the city of Ashland.
Respectfully -
Linda von Hanneken-Martin
WolfPacks.com - Gear for Working Dogs
Phone/FAX: 541-482-7669
web: http://wolfpacks.com
email: traildog@Wotfpacks.com
94
Request for change to Sign Ordinance of the City of Ashland.
Background
, moved my family to Ashland (wife and two daughters - 6yr and 2yr) about 1 yr ago. I opened Endless
Massage to bring an inexpensive and effective option for improved health to the community and our
visitors. We have 4 employees who value and enjoy their jobs, customers who have greatly benefited
from our services, advertising vendors whom we support, an office space lease, and actively contribute
to groups in the community. I respect the ambiance of the town and believe new business owners can
be trusted to promote themselves so these types of signs can be permitted with newly defined
parameters.
Problem statement
Startjnga business is difficult; a poor economy makes this more-difficult. We are trying to gain
awareness in the community. In addition to all our other advertising, we put up a sandwich board (see
picture on back) and it has dramatically helped our business. The sign is within the footprint of the
building, does not obstruct pedestrian traffic, and is simple and tasteful in design. When removing the
sign at the direction of city officials, we saw a huge drop in revenue such that if we are not able to keep
the si2n outside while we develop a customer base. we will not be able to remain in business. I would be
happy to provide corresponding sales reports to support this. Our location is such that this is a vital
component to our advertising and exposure.
Suggestion
--
--.. , "
The city could allow the use of sandwich board or similar sign~~~lthin defined parameters:
. . limit size to 3'x2"
. Must not impede pedestrian flow
. Colors and verbiage to be approved by city
. Permits for 6 months
_-,c
Thank you,
Dave Alexander
541-488-9600
dave@endlessmassage.com
95
Charter Amendment .-".. Limited Government Au~ Protecting Freedom
This Amendment Umits Government And Prevents Any Ordinance From Becoming An Unneeded
And Unwanted Bureaucratic Restriction On Individual Freedom And Business Success
We The People hereby establish that every human being has inalienable rights to life, Iiberty~ and the pursuit of
happiness. These inalienable rights are individual freedoms.
We The People hereby establish: That government is best that governs the least.
The corporation known as.City of Ashland shall pass ~olaw restricting the inalienable rights of the people or
individual freedom without a dear showing of a compelling and overriding public interest.
To ensure transparency, every law resbicting individual freedom shall state in the law the specific public interest
that would be compelling enough to override individual freedom. The public interest shall be stated narrowly and
unambiguously.
To ensure limited government, a government restriction on individual freedom shall be specifically and narrowty
limited to that' compelling and oveniding public interest. The public interest and corresponding restriction shall be
interpreted in their narrowest meaning.
To ensure that the government restriction is based on a compelling and overriding public interest and not an
unnecessary and unwanted government intrusion into the lives of a free people, every law that restricts individual
freedom shall be approved by a majority of the electorate at a regularly scheduled election.
To ensure the people have adequate time to understand, question, and discuss the proposal, any law submitted
by the government to the people that restricts freedom shall be submitted in its final form, including and not limited to
ballot title, su~mary description, and all supporting documents, at least 120 days prior to the date of the election,
and shall be posted the same day to the city's internet web site with an easy-ta-find link on the home page to the full
text of the law and all supporting doCuments. Between the date of filing and the date of election, the city recOrder
shall provide without restriction, without forms, Without questions, and without charge a paper copy of the law to any
individual who requests it in person.
Sign Ordinance
We The People hereby establish 2 public interests compelling enough to warrant sign resbictions.
Public Interest 1 : Overwhelming visual clutter. We The People hereby establish that the quality of life and
economic interests of our community are best served when Ashland's special, charm and historic character are not
overwhelmed by the visual clutter of business signs. We The People recognize that each business has the right to
advertise thelr.uniqueness, location, hours, products, and services.
To allow businesses to promote their financial interests while maintaining a community without overwhelming
visual clutter of'business signs, We The People establish the following sign limitation.
Restriction For Publi~ Interest 1. Ashland businesses with frontage shall be limited to signs covering no more
than _ square feet (211.5/etc.) per linear foot of frontage. "Frontage" shall be defined as "any building side where
the public enters and exits". To protect Ashland's historic character, businesses in an historic district shall be limited
to _ square feet (1.5/1.0/etc.) ~f signs for each linear foot of .business frontage. Every business shall be allowed a
3-dimensional symbol that is no larger than -,,_x_, so long' as that sign is made of safe and durable materials
{defined below], is on private property, and does not damage the public safety of pedestrians or others.
Public Interest 2: Business window transparency. We The People establish a public interest in the window
transparency of businesses with a public entrance. When a business with windows is open to the public, We The
People have 2 public interests in being able to see through that window to the interior: (2a) to increase human
interactions with pedestrian friendliness and thus build community, and (2b) to allow the public to see in advance the
situation into which they are entering, thus inaeasing public safety.
To allow businesses to post window signs while protecting the public interest for business window transparency I
We The People establish the following sign limita~on.
Restriction For Public Interest 2~ Windows of ground-floor businesses with a public entrance shall not be
visually blocked by more than ~% (300/0,25%,350/0, etc.) of the window area at eye-height, defined to be between
3' and 7' [or some other eye-height measurements that includes children and adults, including those in wheel chairs].
This blockage includes signs, shades, curtains, merchandise, or any other visual blockage.
[Add special condition for second floor businesses, alley businesses, etc.]
[Add definition of materials for 3D signs. Exclude lighted plastic, etc..]
Draft T9 Show Approach, 200BAug11
96
Support Staff, And Solve The Pr\.. _ m ,
I continue to read and hear attacks on Adams Hanks and Dean Walker, who are responsible for code
enforcement. . Adam and Dean are city employees paid to do the job they've been directed to do.
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk ''The Buck Stops Here".
In Ashland, the buck stops with the mayor, Vvtlo by charter is the Chief Executive Officer of the
corporation known as City of Ashland, and who directs code enforcement employees.
We need to stop scapegoating staff 'Nho are not responsible for this situation, and focus our energy on
solving the core problem, We need to stop dancing around the edges to make a few minor sign changes so
'N8 can "feel" involved. The law as amended by this task force would not pass a majority vote of the people
because it doesn't solve the core problems. .
Adam and Dean are doing their jobs.
It's time for us as Citizens of Ashland to do ours, which is to hold the mayor accountable, and 'NOrk
together to revvrite the entire sign code as a simple, understandable law in the public interest that 'NOuld
pass a majority vote of the people, as it should in a democracy,
Problems Of The Sign Code As Amended By The Task Force, And Task Force Decisions
It's still not understandable, even by those who've been to 5 meetings and spent 20 hours on it.
It doesn't solve the core problems. .
It doesn't identify the public interests that 'NOuld warrant restri"cting individual freedom and increasing
business costs.
It doesn'.t resolve issues behind most of the 55 or s,o noncompliance letters.
It doesn't answer the questions of businesses or taxpayers for why so much tax money is being spent on
this'item rather than higher priority items. .
It perpetuates the overkill restrictions that go far beyond the public interests re clutter and transparency.
It perpetuates ambiguity in the current law that prevent staff and businesses from determining with
;pecificity 'Nhether their signs do or don't satisfy the sign code. This ambiguity and resulting discretion
:reates 'negotiations' betvveen businesses and staff, and results in charges of favoritism and unequal
:spplication of the law (Wiley's Waiter gets dinged, barber poles do not; some businesses are allowed neon
~igns, others are not; etc.).
It perpetuates multiple sign categories and expensive bureaucracy without a guiding public interest.
It continues restrictions on "exempt signs". How strange to 'Mite restrictions on signs that are exempt
:rom the law.
It transfers liability for government property to businesses through "hold harmless" legal agreements that
'equire Ashland businesses to bear attorney costs for acts of government, ,~ether proper or improper.
It transfers maintenance costs for government property to businesses by requiring maintenance
Jgreements forcing Ashland businesses to bear maintenance costs for property that the government owns.
It transfers control to resolve core issues to the Planning Commission, where the 2 mayoral candidates
)n the task force have more influence.
My message to the task force is the same as my message to the Charter Review Committee: You can't
Jet there from here. The process you're using 'NOn't solve the problem because you're not building the law
)ased on the majority will of the people. The amended law vvouldn't pass. a ballot.
We need to go a different direction. let's re'Nrite the law as Citizens in the public ihterest, by identifying
he public interests that warrant sign restrictions, and limit the restrictions accordingly.
We Citizens can 'Nrite a simple, understandable law that finds the balance benwen business freedom
,nd limited public interests re visual clutter and window transparency without treating the current
lureaucratic nightmare for code enforcement and 'negotiations'.
\r1 Bullock
,fthepeopleeditor@gmail.com
488-3366
nat's GUV-DEMOcracy
97
~.IJl 1/;[;. II=-' IliI '\IW'/ 'Ii?
I~ 1'JP' ~ ,I,ll \~ l~
JUl 1 7 Z007
To Wbom It May Concern
My name is Matt and I owned and operated Rare Earth on the Plaza for over 39 years until controlling
interest was sold to Marcy several years ago. I am for the time being still the landlord of the Perrine's
Building and Old Simpson's Hardware Building. We lease to some of the oldest/best merchants and
tenants on the Plaza, regarded as friends and associates for over 25 years. I have always been more of a
merchant than a landlord and it is reflective in the terms I offer my tenants considering the every rising
costs in fees, taxes, insurance, utilities, employees and benefits being imposed by the City, County, State
and Feds. These rising costs coupled with the dramatic loss of sales (over 60(% in the last 5 years) are
severely impacting many businesses ability to survive in Ashland. We did not downsize Rare Earth out of
personal wishes or for fun!! We, thankfully, downsized in time to survive the lack of leadership and the
obvious lack of concern for the downtown business community's needs! It is not the price of gas or the
tourist's attitudes; it is not the economy or a lack of knowledge in the business community. It is the lack
of leadership to provide healthy direction, convenience and accessibility to the downtown for its citizens,
guests and especially our neighboring communities. We have demonstrated an intolerable arrogance and
lack of cooperation towards our neighbors on many levels. It is no wonder an attitude has emerged from
one of pride and almost envy to becoming laughing stock within a few short years.
Ashland is a tourist town with nobody waiting in the wings to save us from the very amenities that
attracted many of you to relocate to Ashland in the first place. Why 'are we now condemning those
amenities and gains that tourism has facilitated in our community? The result is that Ashland no longer
has "value" and is not competing well in the tourist market, not because of the lack of a desire to visit by
others but because of the limitations being imposed by ignoring those needs of a community based on
tourism. Ashland is no longer envied or admired as an example of a balanced and thriving community.
How many of you say, "Ob, I don't go downtown because of the congestion and incivility" or "I'm sick
of paying the only sales tax in Oregon to bail out more city waste" or "They do not have anything I want
downtown," when you haven't even looked in years? We hear this from many people throughout the
valley. Oh yes, people come to town for a play, parade or other special event but because of the negative
attitude of locals spurred by their leaders, no parking, excessive taxes and ticketing they do not "stay,
play and shop" any longer. Why would leaders of any community tolerate this untenable and destructive .
situation to its business community? We are suffocating from a City that won't grasp the fact that
accessible adequate parking is essential in Ashland and we are paying dearly for that neglect because of a
few who have wasted the community's resources, integrity, and time on social engineering projects that
have not yielded meaningful and realistic results or positively impacting our community after spending
millions while forgoing the security of a solid infrastructure.
As a thought to contemplate, South Shore Lake Tahoe accommodates 12 million diversified tourists
every year with their population of 32 thousand living in a pristine area successfully and environmentally.
The problemS of water, recreation, environment, growth, community, housing, a vision and business
needs were positively impacted years ago with a little cooperation from all concerned, The
acknowledgement was that no one is always right and compromise is the road to success and a benefit for
all by simply stimulating the engines of a community. Meaningless arguments over conditions that can not
be impacted or resolved are a waste of time and money. If individuals wish to follow a lifestyle, that is
their free choice, but to condemn an entire community to the same limitations are nonsense and
counterproductive. Tahoe asked each group to defend the others positions and compromised a settlement
based on that position. The result produced a level of sustainability with their neighboring communities as
98
a reality not just lip service or political dialogs in meetings and propaganda sessions. They established that
using private entrepreneurship to resolve problems does work best while acknowledging the responsibility
and duty of any viable city is to provide the community with practical functioning infrastructures,
educational opportunities, maintenance of public property/open spaces and public safety at a "reasonable
and affordable cost." The social amenities that Ashland claims to desire, but can not afford, are being
financed there by the successful enterprises and cooperation within the business community.
Certainly a city should contribute alternative ideas but in Ashland's case any attempt at success without
adding convenient accessible workforce and visitor parking will remain fleeting and unattainable. No
debate has or will change that reality! I have heard every cliche and excuse the City can muster over the
last 25 years and the end product is always the same: More failures, more excuses, more meetings, more
wasted time, and more money to avoiding the obviousf If the purpose or intent of redundant dialog over
the obvious is to destroy and obstruct what once was a world-class community congratulation, they are
winning! But if Ashland is to once again be "Gem of Southern Oregon," one real need of the downtown
would be parking! Get a grip folks; there is no significant economic diversity on the horizon that has or
can survive this leaderships meddling and anti everything referendum, That leaves what is left of tourism
and like it or not the car is the only viable way for any guests, workers and citizens to enter Ashland. The
car is not going away any time soon but it will be improved. There are autos that get upwards of a
hundred miles to the gallon and others that do not use gas at all. It is only a matter of time as this Country
sets the definitive goal with real cooperation from the very business community they condemn. Tata
Motor from India has already developed a compressed air car that goes 70+ miles per hour, a range of
200 miles without gas, and a 600+ mile range at 78 miles per gallon with a hybrid gas compressed air
combo, It cost about $7500 for the basic model and set to sell overseas next spring.
If realistic solution including adequate accessible parking were forthcoming, the downtown businesses
and property owners would be very willing to cooperate on any level required. It must be made very
clear and understood that attempts to add non-related agendas will sever any cooperation,
Stop confusing affordable housing or other social problems with downtown parking needs. These are
separate issues with very different solutions. The infill myth that the City Planning Department runs is as
flawed as their growth myth in the recent past. Concentrate time and money on those things that actually
can be affected and cause meaningful change, like parking, will guarantee success.
There is a lot of work to be accomplished if Ashland is to do more than just survive. It needs to regain its
credibility, competitive edge and desirability. To procrastinate will only hasten the continued collapse of a
once thriving and desirable community that has succumbed to the fantasy of obstructionism and lying by
omission as a path to success. You can be sure that it is not going to be pleasant to anyone living or
owning anything in Ashland ifwhat is occurring continues. Personally, I do not think the City has the will
or desire to work with or support their business community. They certainly will not listen to those of us
who are on Main Street and are trying to survive their mandates, taxes~ tickets, user fees, rising costs,
codes, ordinances, lack of parking and general incivility . We need to get back on tract, get realistic about
the damage that has been done to our community's economy and the need for adequate accessibility
workforce and visitor parking before we become just another wasteland of bad ideas and dreams of what
could have been.
99
Following is a simple list of possibilities that might help to get Ashland back on the tracks if enacted
sooner rather than later. The list is by no means meant as complete, but could help set a new tone for
cooperation and consideration of our guests and citizens that wish to enjoy the amenities of Ashland.
1) Change the Nutley Street parking lot (ice skating lot) and Windburn Way's head in parking at Lithia
Park to 2 hour near the Plaza and 4 hours from the playground to the band shell. Place both in the
downtown-parking zone with limited parking between 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
2) Change the Water Street parking lots to 2 and 4 hour. Place them in the downtown parking zone with
limited parking 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
3) Encourage and promote Park and Ride areas at the North and South Interchange when the overpasses
are rebuilt by ODOT, Get a grant offinance with ODOr and the county's help. Strongly consider the
feasibility of a free City shuttle and/or better bus services throughout Ashland from Memorial Day to
Labor Day. It would be advisable and courteous to have added bus service during major special events
and parades like Halloween, 4th of July and Festival of Lights.
4) Immediately consider where to put additional parking downtown and implement on a fast track. From
the 1988 downtown plan Ashland is a 1000 space shy of satisfying the minimal needs in the downtown.
We may never reach this goal but it is essential we try and have an official short and long term plan to add
needed parking in the core downtown areas.
If two people per car rotate through a parking spot downtown for the two hour limit just 8 hours of a 24
hour day and spend an average of $100 per person on shopping, dinning and entertainment the potential
revenues gained from a single parking place from June tbm October is $144,000 per year. When you
consider that we are 1000 parking spaces short we are depriving our community of an enormous amount
of money and higher paying job opportunities by not giving our citizens, guest and workforce what they.
want and need---more adequate accessible downtown parking!
5) Stop ticketing employees, city staff, merchants and owners when they are off work playing, shopping
or dining downtown. It is just wrong to ticket them when they are not working and within the parking
guidelines others must follow. Parking agents can keep tract with warning tickets that state if they are
working they are not to park in the downtown zone and if an individual is obviously violating that rule
with excessive warnings, ticket them, During business hours for needed stops allow employees and
owners to place a note or fonn letter from the city on their vehicles for a 15 minute temporarily picking
up or delivering courtesy, ifviolated ticket them.
6) A complaint I have heard: the City excludes themselves from the impact of the problems they help
create. They should share in the demands placed on others, yet they manipulate and ignore codes,
ordinances and laws they've place for their benefit and a chosen few. Everything from parking permits for
themselves, to blackberry abatement, riparian codes, and business license requirements, banner/sign
ordinances, encroaclunent pennits, allowing retail sales and concerts in an R2 residential family zoning
without parking requirements or review standards are approved by the City while businesses on the Plaza
are threatened into submission for the smallest infractions that, more often than not, are literally
meaningless and the hobgoblin of little bureaucratic minds rationalizing their jobs and flexing their power.
7) Another point of interest ---many Plaza businesses do not allow their empJoyees to park downtown
even in the area and times allowed, They park only on Granite Street or above when working. They are
well aware of the problem for customers and are in the forefront when trying to provide for their needs.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Matt
tMtI->-/7-0S
WPh. JkF .
lkll j ." (' H.J~ eo. I.)
11 ~ CJ/l f-z _ OJ
J ~0
310 Oak Street
c/o P.o. 80x 201 .
AShi.nd, OR 17520
2 May 2006 .
Ashland City Council
20 East Main Sf.
Ash'and, OR 97520
Rs: Sign code revision for buildings with more than
two business 1rontages
Dear Council MemberS,
Please see the following pages regarding the sign code revision forwarded to
you in the summer by the Plannklg Commission.
"'Ve believe we understand the principal concern of the Council, and we added
language to ensure buSiness frontages In excess of two will not be as prominentlY
.signed" as the two primarY frontages. An allowable sign area of 50% for the third
business frontage and 25% for the fourth business 1rontage buSiness frontages 01 what
might be permitted lor the two designated primary business Irontages should enable a
business to identify itsen, lessen the visual impact, and deal with unintended
consequences.
it seems that II Is likely that trying to resbict the number of signS any given
business may have to two sides of a building may be a reslJtction at content. Th~.
since It ia apparent that there are buildings that have buSineSS frontages on more than
two sides. the best way to deal with undesirable Impact is to reduce the size permilted.
Our tenants at 130 -A. S1reet do want, need and deserVe signs. We hope this
modification will ensure they may have them soon.
We do not believe sign applications should bigger site reviews. Other
applications already do 11m
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~
Brent Thompson
488-0407
Barbara Thompson -
fl~AA~~
~
~ bt:tt
1~~~
~~
-#~.
-~r;~
01 aLL;,
-
SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-I-D).
Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall confonn to the following regulations:
A. Special Provisions. .
1. Frontage. The number and use of sij(llS allowed by virtue of a given business
~ frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontal!.e. and -fl9 \nrihliRg shell he
II' lIflllitlll with lHorl \hBR Iwe hUli.a --- rreRta81Nl' tor buIdingS wiIh mdIipIe bustJess
fronlages the sign area for business frontages exceeding two shall be 50%
tor the IIJlrd side alld 25% tor tl,e tourll. side 01 the normal area pennitted.
2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall
be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit op~ to the
general public).
3. Material. No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as
part of the exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located
on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each
lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real
estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Pennitted.
t . Wall Signs.
a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be pennitted for each
business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a
single common space or suite.
b. Area. Total sign area shall not be more than one square fOQt of sign' area for
one lineal foot' of legal business frontage. nus area shall not exceed sixty
square feel
c. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches from the face
of the building to which they are at~ached, provided the lowest portion of the
sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may
only project four inch~.
d. Extension above roof line. Sings may not project above the roof or eave line
of the building.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number. One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with
a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Comer lots can COWlt one street
frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal
feet of street frontage, WiUl a luaximum area of six~y square feet per sign.
c. Placement. Signs shall be plac~ so that no sign or portion thereof shall
extend beyond any property line of Ule premises on which such sign is
located. Signs on comer properties shall also comply with the vision
clearance provisions of Section 18.96.06O(F).
d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
3. Marquee or Awning Signs.
a. Number. A maximum of two signs shall be pennitted for each business
frontage in lieu of wall signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the pennitted aggregate sign area not taken up
by a wall sign.
102
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Does the City want to place some or all of the City's Tier 2 Electric Load on
Northwest Requirements Utilities, LLC?
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid
Electric E-Mail: wandersd@ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Megan Thornton
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Does the City want to place some or all, of the City's Tier 2 electric load on Northwest
Intergovernmental Energy Supply (NIES), a corporation formed by Northwest Requirement Utilities to
provide power to local governments?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City should utilize Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) to serve our
Tier 2 load and not contract with NIES.
Advantages/ Disadvantages of the choices:
Advantages of NIES-
Potentially lower Tier 2 power costs
Could eventually own part of an actual generating resource
Management of power cost risks by diversifying our Tier 2 supply
Working in partnership with like utilities
Economies of scale in acquiring non federal power
Disadvantages ofNIES-
Complexity of wholesale power transactions
Creditworthiness requirements beyond BP A's requirements
No guarantee that non federal power will cost less than BP A power
The risk of working with a new organization that has no experience in power supply
The ongoing costs and fees associated with membership
Since power supply decisions are made by proportional vote, little say in resource decisions
Advantages ofBPA-
No additional complexity in wholesale power transactions
BP A may continue to be the lowest cost Tier 2 provider
A number of Tier 2 power choices are available from BP A
No additional fees or dues
BP A will continue to be a reliable business partner that the City has worked with for over 25 years
Disadvantages ofBP A-
Could have higher Tier 2 costs from BP A
No chance to own a portion of generating resources
Little opportunity to influence the cost of power provided by BP A
Page 1 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Conclusion
Staff has concluded that the added complexity and costs associated with diversifYing from BP A
compared to the potential financial benefits, if any do not justify the City pursuing the NRU option for
supplying Tier 2 power. Therefore, using BP A as our Tier 2 power supplier appears to be the most
prudent course of action for the City to pursue.
Background & Discussion:
On November 4, 2008 the City Council authorized the City Administrator to execute a 20-year power
sales contract with the Bonneville Power Administration. This contract runs from Federal fiscal years
2008 - 2028, but purchases under this agreement will not occur until October 1, 2011. Until then the
City will continue to purchase power under our existing 10-year contract with BP A that expires on
September 30, 2011.
BP A's new 20-year contract differs from past contracts because it will apply Tiered Rates. Under the
City's current contract, all power is priced at the same rate. BP A melds all the costs of power from all
of its available power sources.
Under the new Tiered Rate Methodology, the existing output of the Federal system will be charged out
at the "Tier 1" rate which will likely be the lowest power rate. Tier 1 rates will be at the cost to BP A
of providing predominantly hydroelectric power from the existing system which is relatively
inexpensive. Additional power will be purchased from BP A at the Tier 2 rate or from another provider.
Tier 2 will be at a higher rate because Tier 2 prices will require new power sources. The City could
choose to purchase Tier 2 power from BP A or from a non-Federal resource, such as NIES.
BP A is moving to tiered rates to limit the amount of new power generation resources they will need to
acquire to fulfill the growing electric needs of their utility customers. Also, BP A wants to give utilities
price signals and conservation incentives to encourage private resource development and investments
in energy efficiency.
The City will not have to make a decision concerning how it wants to serve its additional load until
November, 2009. To determine the amount of power that the City will get at the Tier 1 rate, BPA will
apply a "Contract High Water Mark" (CHWM), which is a set number of megawatts (MW'S) used by
the City in 2010, historical data, and adjustments for anomalies and conservation. The actual MW
amount of the CHWM will not be known until FY 2011. In addition, there will be a Rate Period High
Water Mark (RHWM) which will be determined during each 2 year or 3 year rate period.
While the City will not know its CHWM until FY 2011, BP A has released their preliminary projection
of CHWM' s. They prefaced these projections as being ""solely for informal, preliminary planning by
customers" .
This projection estimates that Ashland's CHWM will be 21.59 at MW's and that the City's load in
2012 will be 21.98 a MWs, meaning the City would be subject to Tier 2 pricing for .39 a MW's in
2012. However, BP A will be adjusting our CHWM upward based on the amount of conservation the
City achieved between 2006-2010. These things all means that the City should not see much exposure
to Tier 2 pricing in the initial years of the contract.
Page 2 of 4
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The RHWM will be determined during each rate period and can be different than the CHWM. The
RHWM is a number of MW' s the City gets during the rate period based on its CHWM and the amount
of power the Federal system creates. Because BPA's power is largely from hydroelectric dams, the
amount of available power can vary based on the weather and other factors. In the unlikely event that
the output of the Federal system increases, the RHWM could be higher than the CHWM. Under these
circumstances, less Tier 2 power would be needed. However, it is more likely that the Federal
system's output will decrease, which would require the City to purchase more Tier 2 power.
In November, 2009 the City will need to notify BP A of how the City will purchase Tier 2 power. If the
City decides to purchase from BP A, Council will also decide what kind of Tier 2 resource the City
wants BP A to supply.
In November 2008 when the City Council made the decision to sign the new 20-year contract, staff
mentioned that we were exploring using non- federal power sources to meet some or part of our Tier 2
load. The City is a member of Northwest Requirement Utilities (NRU) and NRU created a number of
separate entities to provide an alternative to purchasing Tier 2 power from BP A.
One of the entities created by NRU is NIES, Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply, a group that
municipalities can join to pool their resources to purchase power. This is an ORS 190 organization
that will include Municipal Utilities, Public Utility Districts, and Special Districts. The City would
need to sign a Membership Agreement and a Load Commitment Agreement to join this organization
and purchase power from the LLC. NRU has also created Northwest Energy Supply Cooperative
(NESC); this organization will be made up of all the cooperative utilities that want to purchase power
from the LLC. Each one of these entities would then sign a "Joint Development, Agency and Power
Pooling Agreement" with a third entity, the Administrative Services Cooperative (ASC). ASC is a
corporation that was formed to conduct joint investigation, planning, acquisition, management and
operation of power resources for NESC and NIES. NIES and NESC would be the only members of
the ACS. In order to purchase power through NRU, LLC, the City would need to execute a
Membership Agreement and a Load Commitment Agreement, and as a member ofNIES the City
would be subject to the Power Pooling Agreement. The deadline to make the decision is April 30,
2009.
All members of either NIES or NESC would need to execute a Load Commitment Agreement
committing to place at least 500/0 for their Tier 2 load on the NRU LLC.
Diversifying 50% of our Tier 2 load to NRU LLC would increase the complexity of our wholesale
power supply. Instead of one bill from BP A there would be additional billings and payments which
would require staff time to administer. The LLC has worked very hard with BP A to make this
transaction as simple as possible. There are creditworthiness and credit support requirements
associated with buying from the LLC above and beyond the parameters needed for BP A Tier 2
purchase.
CONTRACT STRUCTURE & TERMS
There is a separate memo from the City's legal Department that analyzes the legal issues involved
in purchasing Tier 2 power from NRU. That memo is attached to this communication.
Page 3 of 4
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The City might want to diversify some of our Tier 2 purchase if there are financial benefits from
pursuing this path. While it is virtually impossible to know what NRU LLC'S or BP A's prices will be
in the future, it is possible to give a range of potential savings by making some assumptions about load
growth and the potential cost of future energy supply.
Using BPA's Load forecast of25 a MW in 2028 and their Projected High Water Mark of21.59 a MW,
the City would be purchasing 3.41 MW of Tier 2 power in 2028. Assuming that half of this load was
placed on the LLC and that they were able to price their power at $10/MWh lower than BPA's, Tier 2
power the savings in 2028 would be $160,000. Of course there is no assurance that NRU LLC would
be less expensive than BP A but $1 O/MWh would probably be a reasonable upper estimate of the cost
savings. Offsetting these potential savings would be the annual cost of being in this organization (dues
& administration) and the increased complexity of diversifying away from BP A. Also there is no
assurance that the LLC could be successful in being able to supply power at costs lower than BP A.
BP A Tier 2 Choices
The decision about what kind of Tier 2 choice the City wants to utilize needs to be made by November,
2009. Until the City's Tier 2 load exceeds 1aMW, BPA will be billing the City for our Tier 2 load as a
part of our Load Shaping Charge. Until the load exceeds 1aMW, the type of Tier 2 service will not
effect the BP A adjustment of this Load Shaping Charge. Based on current projections, in 2014 the
City's load would exceed our CHWM by more than 1 a MW and Tier 2 service would then be served
by an actual Tier 2 product.
BP A has announced that they will offer 3 Tier 2 rate alternatives. A Load Growth Rate, a Short Term
Rate and a Vintage Rate or a set of Vintage Rates. Load Following or full requirement customers like
Ashland can select any on of theses three offerings.
Staff plans on providing the Mayor & Council with an extensive analysis of these options in September
or October 2009, in order for this decision to be made by November 2009 deadline.
Related City Policies:
N/A
Council Options:
. Rely on BPA to supply all of the City's Tier 2 power needs.
. Place 50otlo of our Tier 2 power needs on the NRU LLC.
. Place our entire Tier 2 power needs on the NRU LLC.
Potential Motions:
1) No action -All Tier 2 Load would be served by BP A.
2) Move to authorize the city Administrator to execute the Membership Agreement, Load
Commitment Agreement and Power Pooling Agreement with NRU LLC in order to place 50%
or 100% of the City's Tier 2 Load on the LLC.
Attachments:
Legal Department Memo
Page 4 of 4
~~.,
City of Ashland
Legal Department
Memorandum
To:
Date:
Re:
Dick Wanderscheid, Director of Electric Utilities
Megan Thornton, Assistant City Attorney
April 2, 2009
Membership and Load Commitment Agreements for NRU, LLC
From:
Background
The City currently gets its power from Bonneville Power Administration, and it has recently signed an agreement
to continue receiving power from BPA. However, the City could also choose to have an alternative power
source. The City is considering joining the Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply Corporation as a
secondc;3ry source for some of the City's Tier 2 power supply. The legal department has evaluated the structure
of the agreements and some of the terms for your consideration.
Contract Structure and Tenns
There are three separate agreements with exhibits that will govern the City's involvement with
the LLC. Some of the key terms of the Membership Agreement and Load Commitment Agreement
are discussed below. These are the two documents that the City will have to execute to become a
member of NIES. However, the legal issues regarding the Power Pooling Agreement are not
discussed in this memo because that agreement would only apply if the City became a member NIES.
If the Council is considering joining NIBS, the City Attorney's office will provide additional advice
regarding NIES' obligations under the Pooling Agreement because all members of NIES will be
subject to the pooling agreement.
Terms of the Membership Aereement
Section 1: The City cannot become a member of the NIBS unless it commits to purchasing power
from NIES.
Section 2: The City must provide credit support and may be required to assume obligations and
liabilities ofNIES under the Load Commitment Agreement.
Section 4: There is a $2,500 membership fee, plus annual dues in an amount that will be determined
by the Board of Directors for NIES, and the Board may impose additional assessments.
Section 5: Membership can be transferred in accordance with the law.
Page 1 of 3
Terms of the Load Commitment A2reement
Article 2 92: The City must agree to have NIES supply at least 500/0 of its above RHWM load;
however, this requirement only applies after the City's above RHWM is 1.0aMW or
greater. Therefore, it will likely be a number of years before the City would be required to
place any load on NIES.
Article 2 92.6: The City must declare what percentage of its load will be served by NIES every two to
four years, which coordinates with the declarations necessary under the City's BP A
contract. This allows the City to change its dependency on NIES to better meet its needs.
Article 3: NIES is obligated to acquire, own, and operate sufficient resources to supply the City with
power; however, ifNIES fails to supply all of the power required under the agreement, and
the NIES' deficiency lasts less than 180 days, the City cannot terminate the agreement. In
that situation the City would be allowed to obtain power on the open market and submit a
bill to NIES for the cost of the replacement power.
Article 4 9 4.1: The City would be obligated to pay NIES for a portion of NIES' costs of acquiring,
maintaining, and operating resources for any resource pool that the City would be utilizing.
The City's cost responsibility would be in proportion to its use of the resource.
Article 4 9 4.2: The City would have voting rights for decisions that involve financial commitment
for each resource pool it belonged to, but the weight of its vote would be based on the
City's load as determined by the City's cost responsibility for the resource. Therefore, the
weight of the City's vote would likely be small because the City would not likely be
placing a lot of load on NIES in the near future.
Article 4 94.5: The City's purchase of power under the agreement does not mean that the City would
have any ownership interest in any of the power resources. There is a possibility the City
could own resources if it advanced funds solely for the purpose of resource acquisition, but
that ownership interest would terminate if the City terminated its membership, at which
time NIES would compensate the City for the value of the resource at termination.
However, nothing in the agreement would prohibit the City from acquiring resources on its
own outside of this agreement.
Article 5: The City would be responsible for a portion ofNIES' administrative costs, costs associated
with investigating resources, and its share of costs associated with any resource pool it
would be acquiring power from. All of the costs are determined in part by the amount of
load placed on NIES; however, the administrative and resource investigation costs also
have a flat fee that would be paid regardless of the City's power obligations.
Article 6: The City would be required to establish its creditworthiness after credit support policies are
established by the Risk Management Committee. The proof of creditworthiness can only
be used for the financial obligations of the City to NIES. This agreement would not
require the City to pledge its credit to another NIES member without the express approval
of the City Council. At this point NIES has not formed the committee; therefore, it is
unclear what will be required to establish creditworthiness, but the ongoing requirement to
prove creditworthiness will likely require staff time and additional costs.
. Page 2
Article 7 S 7.1: The City would be required to continue to meet all of its financial obligations for all
resource pools it belongs to regardless of any event. Therefore, even if NIES failed to
provide power the City would still be required to pay for the resources.
Article 8: The right to purchase power under this agreement does not include transmission of the
power. Therefore, the City would be required to obtain transmission service rights for
NIBS to deliver the power to BP A, which would then transmit the power to the City.
Article 9 S 9.2.2.5: If NIES defaults, NIES must cure the default or pay for the cost of replacement
power. However, the City will only be allowed to terminate this agreement due to a
default ifNIES fails to deliver power for 180 consecutive days. In general, this contract is
difficult to terminate. See Article 11 below.
Article 11: The agreement continues until it is terminated. The City could opt out and choose to
discontinue future load commitments in 2019, but that would not excuse the City from
meeting its existing financial obligations under the agreement. This would include
payment of any administrative costs that are not based on use of a resource.
The City could terminate the agreement with Board approval by entering into a
termination agreement in accordance with this section. However, the first opportunity to
terminate this agreement without Board approval occurs in 2026, and it would allow the
City to terminate the agreement in 2028 if the City provided written notice of its intent to
terminate the agreement. The City could terminate earlier ifNIES fails to acquire adequate
resources to supply power to the City.
Article 14 S 14.9: The agreement requires the City to resolve disputes through mediation and binding
arbitration.
Conclusion
The structure of the corporations is complicated due to the various entities that are involved. The
types of entities and the distribution of voting rights makes it likely that the City will have little power
to actually determine the direction that NIES will take because the City will not be placing a lot of
load on NIES in the near future. In addition, this agreement is generally difficult to terminate;
therefore, if the City wishes to join NIBS it will likely not be able to terminate prior to 2028 without
costs and extensive staff time.
. Page 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Transit and RVTD Update
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
PW Engineering E-Mail:
Administration Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught /552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or. us
Ann Seltzer / 552-2106
30 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to continue the current contact with RVTD to reduce transit fares in Ashland by
75% or does the Council wish to change the contact to simultaneously restore Route 5 service and
reduce the subsidy within Ashland to 50%?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council select proposal #2 presented by RVTD which reinstates Route 5 (as
Route 15) reducing the subsidy within Ashland to 50% and allocate $250,000 to transportation services
in the FY2010 budget.
Background:
The City of Ashland in the past, supported transit service by providing an extra Ashland only route and
by providing free bus fare within Ashland. In 2006 RVTD determined that the cost of providing route 5
combined with a free fare was more than the City had been paying. The City Council had to choose
between providing Route 5 with a $1 fare within Ashland and providing a subsidy to reduce fares to
$.50 with in Ashland. The Council opted for the second choice; to eliminate the Ashland only route and
reduce fares within Ashland on existing Route 10. Currently the City pays $1.50 of the fixed route $2.00
fare (riders pay $0.50), and $3.00 of the standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider
pays $1.00). The contract also stipulates that the City will pay net operating costs of the Valley Lift
services for ridership above 9,800 rides. This agreement for Ashland residents was reached during a
series of regular and special City Council meetings from June 2006 through September 2006, following
RVTD's report on their financial difficulties.
The current ""fare buy down" program was memorialized in a one-year contract between RVTD and the
City in September 2006. In June 2007 the Council approved a one-year renewal of that contract and
directed staff to hire a transit consultant to evaluate the City of Ashland's transit needs. The consultant
completed the preliminary transit evaluation for Ashland which was presented to the Council at the
October 6, 2008 Study Session. Those transit findings lead staff to propose to incorporate the transit
data into the comprehensive multi-modal transportation system plan update to ensure that future transit
routes tie into all modes of transportation.
However, one of the suggested changes to the existing "fare buy-down" program was to retain Route 10
with the current operation and to reinstate Route 5 for 8 hours of service. To achieve this new plan, the
consultant suggested redeploying the current subsidy toward service rather than subsidy. In addition, the
consultant suggested that the reinstatement of Route 5 include a fare box return (City Revenue)
component.
Page 1 of 5
~~,
. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The following chart demonstrates the ridership trends which staff believes supports the transit
consultant's recommendation to focus on service rather than subsidizing rides.
Ashland Ridership 1997-2008
160,000
140,000
120,000
a. 100,000
:c
III 80,000
"-
Q)
"C
~ 60,000
40,000
20,000
o
~ PJ'b PJ~ s;)~ ,,~" s;)'l.- s;)f'l:J s;)b< d') ,,~ro s;)'\ s;)'b
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~t ~t ~t ~ ~
~fl}<::-' ~fl}<::-' ~fl}<::-' ~fl}<::-' ~fl}<::-' ~fl}<::-' ~'8" ~'8" ~'8" ~'8" ~fl}<::-' ~fl}<::-'
Months and Year
Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - $0.25
Ashland Ridership on Rt 10, No Rt 5
Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - Free
Total Ashland trips Rt 10 - $0.50
Since the October 2008 study, RVTD has provided a recommendation to reinstate Route 5 with a fare
box return component. RVTD's proposal includes a "fare buy-down" component; however, the
proposed ""fare buy-down" reduces the City's subsidy to the inter-city transit program. RVTD's
proposal recommends the City pay $1.00 of the standard $2.00 fare (riders pay $1.00), and $2.00 of the
standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider pays $2.00). The new proposal and
subsequent contract will continue to stipulate that the City will pay net operating costs ($18.31) of the
Valley Lift services for ridership above 9,800 rides.
Staff recommends that Council accept RVTD's proposal for this change in our support for transit. The
addition of Route 5 is consistent with the City's transit consultant's suggestions to increase frequency
and reduce the transit subsidy as the addition of Route 5 increases the bus frequency from 30 minute
intervals to 15 minute intervals and decreases the transit subsidy as described above. The proposed
Ashland Transit Routes are as follows:
Page 2 of5
r~'
... J
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RVTD provided three service proposals for the reinstatement of Route 5 or the ""Loop." Those proposals
are detailed in the attached RVTD proposal and a summary of the options and associated costs are as
follow:
Proposal #1 Net Cost Estimate
Route 5 (6.5 hours) $103,067
Route 10 ($1.00 Subsidy) $102,658
TOTAL $205,725
* includes a $24,000 Route 5 fare box
return estimate.
Proposal #2 Net Cost Estimate
Route 5 (9 hours) $129,817
Route 10 ($1.00 Subsidy) $102,658
TOTAL $232,475
* includes a $33,600 Route 5 fare box return estimate.
Page 3 of 5
r~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Proposal #3 Net Cost Estimate
Route 5 (13 hours) $183,217
Route 10 ($1.00 Subsidy) $102,658
TOTAL $285,875
* includes a $43,200 Route 5 fare box return estimate
Note: The totals reflected in the proposals listed above reflect all costs for services including fixed route
and valley lift users based on a percentage of 04-05 actual users. Should actual users in FY201 0 exceed
the estimate; the City will see an increase in fare box receipts. On the other hand, if the actual FY201 0
users fall short, then the cost for service will increase.
Financial Impacts
The FY 2008-09 adopted Street Operation Budget approved $290,000 for the transit line item. Of that
$290,000, $217,500 was allocated for the RVTD contract. The remaining funds were allocated to pay
for a transit consultant to review Ashland transit needs. Of the three Route 5 options included in the
RVTD proposal, Option 2 at a cost of $232,000 reflects the transit consultant's recommendation. It is
also important to point out that the R VTD' s proposal includes a Route 5 "fare box return" element that
allows the City of Ashland to retain 100% of the fares generated by Route 5. If the Council were to
agree with the transit consultant and choose Option 2 then the annual cost to provide inter-city bus
service for Ashland would increase by $14,500.
There are however, potential revenue sources through the State of Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits
(BETC) program that can offset the cost of providing inter-city transit services. The BETC program
provides a 25.5% tax credit to communities that invest in transportation projects that reduce vehicle
miles traveled. The good news is that the City of Ashland's inter-city projects meets the BETC
Requirements. To that end, staff is submitting a BETC application that if approved will cover the
remainder of this fiscal year through June 2010. Upon approval, the BETC application will reduce the
annual financial impact of the RVTD proposal to $172,840.
In addition to the RVTD proposal, staff recommends that Ashland increase the current allocation for bus
passes distributed to the high school and the Senior Center from $4,000 to $10,000 as an additional
assistance to those riders that cannot afford the proposed increase in fare box charges.
Related City Policies:
. Ashland Municipal Code
. Ashland's FY 2008-09 Budget
· Ashland's Transportation System Plan
· Ashland's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Council Options:
1. The City Council could decide to implement one of the three options listed in R VTD' s proposal
to reinstate Route 5 and allocate $250,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10.
2. The City Council could decide to continue the current Route 10 Transit Subsidy and allocate
$290,000 for transportation and RVTD services for 2009-10.
Page 4 of 5
~~,
.. I
CITY Of
ASHLAND
3. The City Council could decide to eliminate the transit subsidy and not allocated funds for
transportation and RVTD services for 2009-10.
4. The City Council could decide to modify (
) staff s recommendations
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve R VTD' s reinstatement of Route 5
Proposal #1 (6.5 hours) for $205,725; a bus pass allocation of$10,000 (for High School and
Senior Center); and allocate $250,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10, or
Proposal #2 (9 hours) for $232,500; a bus pass allocation of $1 0,000 (for High School and Senior
Center); and allocate $250,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10, or
Proposal #3 (13 hours) for $285,875; a bus pass allocation of$4,000 (for High School and Senior
Center); and allocate $300,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10.
2. Move to continue the current Route 10 Transit Subsidy and allocate $290,000 for transportation
and RVTD services for 2009-10
3. Move to eliminate the transit subsidy
4. Move to modify (
) staff recommendations
Attachments:
1. FY 2008-09 Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD
2. Cover Letter dated for service proposal from Julie Brown
3. 2009-2011 Service Proposal for the City of Ashland, Oregon
4. Estimated Operating Cost Spreadsheet
5. FY 2009-2011 Draft Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD
Page 5 of 5
r~'
.. I
R.WU I CITY OF ASHLAND - AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
July 1 t 2008 - June 30, 2009
Agreement made effective July 1,2008 between Rogue Valley Transportation District
(IQtU)) and the City of Ashland (City).
RWD and City agree:
\
1. REDUCED FARE PROORAM. In order to encourage and increase ~ ridership
within the City, the City will reduce the cost of fixed route fares within the City from
$2.00 to $.50, and will reduce the Valley Lift paratransit fares within the City from $4.00
to S1.00.
1.1 Contract will begin on July 1,2008, and will end on June 30,2009.
1.2 - will provide $.50 fare service on fixed route buses and $1.00 fare
service on Valley Lift paratransit buses to passengers picked up and
delivered within the City.
1.3 R~ will bill City for the reduced fares described above based on the
actual number of rides provided within the City. Rides will be detailed in
a monthly ridership report completed by &WD, and bills will be
submitted on a quarterly basis.
1.4 _ will also bill City for the operating costs of providing Valley Lift
service if ridership exceeds 9,800 passengers per year. The billed amount
shall equal $18.31 per ride over the 9,800 passenger threshold and shall
apply to the period of July J, 2001 through June 30, 200g. __
. ,~ ,. ~
1.5' City will remit to 1UaD, on a quarterly basis when billed by IWID,
$1.SO for each fixed route ride and S3.00 for each Valley Lift paratransit
ride provided by llWU within the City.
2. CONSIDERATION: Total payments to RVfR1 will not exceed $217,500 per
fiscal year.
In the event that the $217,SOO annual allotment from the City will beIbecomes
exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year, the program for that fiscal year will end and
fixed route and Valley tift paratransit fares will revert to standard _ fares for the
balance of the fiscal year.
22 If either llWD or City wishes to modify this agreemen~ both parties shall
meet to negotiate modifications to the agreement
G:Yec:ader'City CouncI ~ Fies\2OO7~ RVm ,tqeement.atch1.doc
Page 1 at 3
JUN 1 'I ~
'. I
3. TERMINATION:
3.1 Termination for Convenience. This agreement may be terminated by
either party for that party's convenience upon thirty days notice in writing
to the other party. RVID shall be compensated for all services performed
under this agreement up to the effective termination date.
3.2 , For Cause. Either party may immediately terminate this agreement for
cause upon delivery of written notice to the other party or such later date
as may be established by mutual agreement, under any of the following
conditions;
3.2.2 If federal or state laws, rules or regulations are modified,
changed, or interpreted in such a manner that the services
are not longer allowable or appropdate under this
agreement; .
3.2.3 If any license or certification required by law or regulation
required for ~ provision of the services under this
agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or
not renewed.
4. Publicity. Any publicity or advertising regarding the program by the City shall
first be reviewed by RVID for accuracy and must acknowledge the support ofRVTD.
llVID will provide City with appropriate logo for this purpose.
S. Access to Records. The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have
access to the records of R V1D and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this
Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts.
6. Workers Compensation. RvrD, its subcontractors, uany, and all employees
working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's
Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide
workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers.
7. General Liability RVID, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this
1 Agreement shall comply with Oregon State Laws related to workers compensation,
employment, payroll taxes and general liability for loss of property, injury to riders or
others.
8. LivinJ Wage RVID shall comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland MUnicipal
code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing
work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor who performs 500/0 or more of the
service work under this Agreement R vm shan post the attached notice predominantly
in areas where all employees can easily see it.
. G:\rec:ordetClyCcxn:l PldcetsPKkeC Fies\2007~'RVTD ~1.doc
Page 2 of 3
. I
9. Miscellaneous Provisions
9.1 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be responsible for delay or default
caused by rue, flood, riot, acts of God, and/or war which are beyond the
party's reasonable control. RVID may terminate this Agreement by
written notice after determining such delay or default will reasonably
prevent successful performance of this Agreement.
9.2 Amendment. The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered,
modified, supplemented or amended in any manner whatsoever without
prior written approval of R vm and the City.
9.3 Waiver. Either party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of its right to such
perfonnance, nor of its ~ght to enforce any other provision of the
Agreement
9.4 Federal Government Not A Party. The Federal Government is not a party
to this Agreement and shall have no obligation to any third party absent
the Federal Government's express written consent.
9.S Attorney's Fees. In case of suit, action, proceeding, or arbitration to
enforce any rights or conditions of this Agreement, it is mutually agreed
that the losing party in such suit, action, proceeding, arbitration or appeal
sball pay the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee in such
amount as set by the cowt or arbitrator hearing such suit, action,
~ing. arbitration or appeal.
9.6 Entire Agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties. No representations, warranties, promises, guarantees
or agreements, oral or written, express or implied, have been made by
either party hereto with respect to this Agreement or the vehicles,
equipment or drivers to be provided hereunder.
ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DIST
~~
General Manager
~~
a:~~
::i~c-
DaVl
Legal Counsel for R VID
Date:
G~Ccnd~Fies\2007-~RVTD~1.doc
Page 3 of3
. I
Rogue Valley Transportation District
FraIn the Desk of Julie Brc)\vn. (Jeneral~1anager
3200 Crater Lake Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504-9075
Phone (541) 779-5821 . Fa~'( (541 ) 773-2877
l/isit our website at: \V\v\v.rvtd.org
TO: Martha Bennett, City Administrator
CC: Mike Faught and Ann Seltzer
DATE: March 17, 2009
RE: Upcoming Agreement for Services
Thank you for your continued support and partnership. RVTD has supplied your staff
with service proposals to review and we are available to discuss these with you. The
proposals include a fare buy down and the addition of a circulator route that will allow
for 15 min. frequencies between the Plaza, SOU and Tolman Creek Rd.
RVTD has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both a fare buy down and a Loop
route since 2006 as reflected in the narrative to the proposals. We recommend
increasing fares to $1.00 and adding a circulator to make more efficient use of the
City's subsidy. Additionally, RVTD is seeking a 22-month contract beginning 9/7/2009.
The City of Ashland has obligated $290,000 in prior years' budgets dating back to 2003
to be used toward Public Transportation. The City has used a portion of this allocation
each year since 2006 toward planning activities. RVTD believes that at this time, there
is a higher value to implementing increased transit service to existing and new users
than in documenting its value. The proposed Loop route is cost-efficient and, based on
actual data, has already proven to be successful in boosting ridership. There will be
opportunities to plan future route concepts with RVTD in the 2009-10 and the 2010-11
MPO Unified Planning Work Program.
Sincerely,
Rogue Valley Transportation District
3200 Crater Lake Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504-9075
Phone (541) 608-2429. Fax (541) 773-2877
Visit our website at: www.rvtd.org
2009-2011 Service Proposal for the City of Ashland, Oregon
March 9, 2009
Honorable Council Members and City of Ashland Staff,
With your demonstrated support for providing access to all modes of transportation,
RVTD is pleased to forward a proposal for transit service enhancements during the
2009-2011 Fiscal Years. Also included is a presentation of the surveying and marketing
efforts completed recently in the City of Ashland.
Transit Service History
. 1997 - Exclusive Loop Service Started w / $0.25 fare
· 1999 - Loop Discontinued
. 2001 - Loop Resumed w / $0.25 fare
. 2002 - Both Loop and Route 10 Free Fare
. 2006 to Present Day- Loop Discontinued, Route 10 fare at $0.50
Based on discussions with City Staff members Mike Faught and Ann Seltzer, it was
determined that a cafeteria of options should be presented. Ultimately, there are two
variables between the options. Those are: the cost of the fare and the hours of operation.
RVTD is seeking a 22-month contract starting September 7, 2009 and ending June 30,
2011. The contract is based on the District's direct cost per mile of operations (fuel and
maintenance only) and the cost of the driver(s) wages and benefits. This contract
amount would be billed to the City on a quarterly basis and reduced by the total fare
box collected from the Loop route.
This proposal would only affect the Route #10 agreement in that the fare charged on the
Loop must be the same fare charged on the Route #10 within the City. The Valley Lift
paratransit service area would not be extended because the Loop route follows the same
path as Route #10. The Valley Lift service clauses are still in effect and tied to the fare.
Ashland Ridership and Service Levels
Premium transit service, such as a lower fare and frequent bus arrivals, will generate
the most citizens, visitors and students choosing to use transit. This effect is
demonstrated well in the City's history of fluctuating levels of transit service. When the
Free Fare and Loop were both in place, ridership was at it's highest ever seen; between
January and June 2006 RVTD and the City provided 152,606 transit trips. When the
Loop was discontinued and fare raised to 50 cents, ridership plummeted to 46,021
between July and December 2006.
Ashland Ridership 1997-2008
20,000
o
~ PJco
,,~ ,,~
~0 ~0 ~0
,).:s ,).:s ,).:s
~. ~. ~.
') flj ') flj ') flj
160,000
140,000
120,000
.9- 100,000
.c
en 80,000
~
Q)
"'C
~ 60,000
40,000
PJ~ s:::,C)
,,~ ~
~0
,).:s
~.
')flj
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ rvC:S ~ ~ ,,~ ~ ~
~0 ~0 ~0 0 0 ~'V ~0 ~0
~.:s ,).:s ,)V ,)v<::' ,')v<::' ,).:s ~.:s ~.:s
~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Months and Year
Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - $0.25
Ashland Ridership on Rt 10, No Rt 5
-
Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - Free
Total Ashland trips Rt 10 - $0.50
Because the Loop and Free Fare were in place at the same time during the ridership
'boom' years, it has been difficult to state which was more important for the rider:
frequency or cost. The City's ridership since 2006 has not grown as would be expected
after the residual effects of a 'fare shock' would have occurred, usually in the first year.
This has lead R VTO to determine frequency as a more important factor than fare cost for
someone deciding whether to use transit in the City of Ashland.
2
-- I
Route descri ption-
The Ashland Loop is a five-mile route that begins and ends at the Ashland Plaza. The
route would serve the Plaza, E. Main St., the University, Ashland St., Tolman Creek Rd.
and Siskiyou Blvd. The route can travel in either direction while in south Ashland
however 15-minute service would only be possible with both Route #10 and the Loop
traveling in the same direction.
A passenger activity survey completed in 2008 generated useful information about the
highest and best use of a Loop route. The previous Loop, Route #5, ran from the Plaza
to Ashland St. and around E. Main and back. It did not travel along Tolman Creek Rd.
or Siskiyou Blvd. The survey showed that Tolman Creek and Siskiyou Blvd generate
considerably more ridership than the E. main loop. Since the proposed loop cannot
serve both areas within the time span available, RVTD used the passenger activity data
to determine where the loop could run to be efficient and cost-effective.
3
-- I
Service Hours-
As one of the components to minimize costs, RVTD has analyzed a route that would
run:
.
6.5 hours per day (requiring 1 FT Driver)
9.0 hours per day (requiring 1 FT Driver and 1 PT Driver)
13.0 hours per day (requiring 2 FT Drivers)
.
.
A 6.5-hour operating day at the cost quoted is only possible with continuous service,
meaning the driver cannot have a split shift with this scenario. This is the most
economical, however it will not cover both an AM and a PM peak. The day could for
example begin at 11:00AM and end at 5:30 PM capturing the majority of afternoon and
work commute home travel. Or, the day could begin at 7:30AM and end at 2:00PM to
capture early morning commute to work and school (SOU especially) trips.
A 9.0-hour operating day at the cost quoted is only possible with continuous service,
one driver works 4X10.5' s and a part-time driver picks up the Friday shift. This is the
second most economical however will barely cover both an AM and a PM peak. The
day could, for example, begin at 7:30AM and end at 5:30 PM.
A 13.0-hour operating day at the cost quoted is a full-day service day requiring two full-
time drivers and a relief trip midday. This is the most costly option however will cover
both an AM and a PM peak. The day would begin at 6:00AM and end at 7:00 PM.
Fare Considerations
'Fare Shock' often causes ridership to decrease within the first six-months (if in a small
increment -$0.25 is standard) but eventually ridership recovers. This recovery can take
longer if the increase is more drastic. RVTD increased fares from $1.00 to $2.00 in 2006
and ridership decreased 14 % system-wide within the first six months but since has
recovered and is near the 2005-2006 ridership levels again.
The City of Ashland also increased fares in 2006, but from free to $0.50. Ridership
plummeted and has not regained 2005-2006 levels. Evidence from each of the service
types and fares the City has supported within the past decade suggests that ridership
should have regained just as RVTD's did.
RVTD is confident that frequency is a stronger determinant for generating higher levels
of ridership than we see today. If the City moves forward with a fare increase, RVTD
strongly suggests a move to $1.00 with increases of $0.25 during years when the budget
is constrained to ensure a Loop service is maintained.
4
'. J
RVTD's current fare strata would also apply.
For example:
$1.00 - Full Fare (18-61 years of age)
$0.50 - Reduced Fare (62 years and older, 10-17 years of age and disabled)
Free - For transfers made within the City and for children 0-9 with paying adult
Hardship Programs
The City of Ashland has a program that was implemented in 2007 to provide monthly
bus fare cards for eligible citizens who meet certain income criteria. RVTD also offers a
bus pass program for employers, schools and other congruent populations. The RVTD
bus pass cost for each person is heavily reduced due to passes being purchased in bulk
for every person in the population. The current cost is $3.85 per person per month.
These programs are alternatives for citizens who may experience hardship from a fare
increase within the City.
Partnership with SOU
Each year, RVTD encourages SOU to adopt a bus pass program for its students. The
students and the Administration have thus far declined a bus pass program to their
students even after a campus-wide survey demonstrated the majority of students
wanted the program and were willing to pay for it in increased parking fees. SOU could
be a financial contributor and is a major benefactor of special transit services.
2008 Passenger Survey
RVTD completed its system-wide triennial passenger survey in May 2008. A total of
288 surveys were collected on the Route #10. The surveys collected on this route
demonstrated slightly higher incomes but on the whole there were no major
demographic differences between Route #10 and the rest of the system. The following
are selected highlights that likely include passengers traveling within Ashland:
. 77% of the passenger survey pool was between the ages of 19 and 64
· 63% did not have a valid driver's license
· 36% reported annual income of less than $15,000
. 72% walked to catch the bus; 66% boarded at a bus stop
. 57% reached the bus in less than five minutes, and 55% reached their final
destination within five minutes after departing from the bus
· 29% used the bus to get to work
· 79% used the bus three to five days per week
· 50% used the bus five days per week
. 34% would not have made the trip if bus service were not available
5
'. I
Surveying of Ashland Passengers and Stop Activity
RVTD completed a year-long passenger activity survey in accordance with Federal
Transit Administration guidelines and practices. The stop activity will assist RVTD staff
with planning and stop improvements.
The following are the most frequently used bus stops in the City of Ashland:
. Ashland Plaza
. Al bertson' s
. Lithia Way and Oak
. Bi-Mart
. Lithia Way north of Oak
. Ashland Library
. Beanery (at the 'Y')
6
.. I
Marketing
Outreach of transit scheduling and availability to the public is an important component
of any successful transit line. As part of the 2005 service agreement, RVTD proposed
marketing activities that would be completed that service year.
These included:
.
RVTD's Interactive Education offered to primary education schools
Bus Advertising sign advertising the Free Fare (now obsolete)
Hosting transportation exhibits at local events
Placing placards in each shelter with a map a.nd schedule-12 were posted in 2006
since then 6 have been vandalized or stolen and not yet replaced.
Distributing transit schedules to be available at local venues
Partnering with SOU Capstone students to increase support for transit
.
.
.
.
.
Lastly, an effort to create a TV and Radio commercial was under way to promote the
Free Fare when the message became obsolete due to the fare increase.
2009-2011 Marketing Proposal:
RVTD would like to establish a marketing plan for a Loop system or any fare changes
with through local resources. The City of Ashland, the Chamber of Commerce, the
Student Affairs office of SOU and others could actively promote using transit.
RVTD will commit to doing the following:
. Replacing the removed placards in the shelters
. Updating the information on all placards with new route/ schedule information
. Provide free bus advertising space on one vehicle
. Continue to promote Ashland's system at local events
In partnership with the City of Ashland, RVTD would like to see the following:
. Create a tri-fold specific to the Ashland system for distribution
. Distribute promotional information through utility bill stuffers
. Coordinate a public relations event to launch the new service
. Approach SOU Administration to request ongoing support of a fare buy-down
. Approach the Chamber of Commerce and local employers to encourage
employees to use transit, especially in downtown
. Creation of a bus ad to utilize free ad space offer from RVTD
7
. I
2009-2011 Service Cost Estimate for Route 10 only
The City of Ashland buys down the fare on Route 10 for each passenger riding in
Ashland, therefore service cost estimates are based on recent ridership figures.
City of Ashland Ridership 2008-09
$.50 Fixed Route Fare
$1. Valley Lift Fare
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
6,846
6,537
6,306
8,139
5,971
6,277
5,758
5,924
6,470
6,470
6,470
6,4 70
1,030
926
960
1,064
832
884
908
874
935
935
935
935
TOTAL
77,638
11 ,218
Ridership figures for March through June are estimated based on the average of prior month's ridership.
2009-2011 Service Costs for Route 10 only
Annual Estimated cost of Route 10 subsidy @
Fixed Route
$1.50 (50 cent fare)
$1.00 ($1.00 fare)
$116,457
$77,638
Valley Lift
$3.00 ($1.00 fare) $55,364
$2.00 ($2.00 fare) assume -100/0 $25,020
Per ADA, Valley Lift fare is no more than twice that of regular fare
$171,820
$102,658
TOTAL wi subsidy @ $1.50
TOTAL wi subsidy @ $1.00
Please note: Route 10 fare will be consistently priced with fare charged on a Loop Route
.. I
Rogue Valley Transportation District
Estimated Operating Costs
Proposed Ashland Circulator Route (15)
Revenue Service Hours = 6.5
Trips Total
Route Per # Service Annual
Length Day Days Miles Cost per Total Costs
Bus Operating Cost:
Route 15 5.0 13 255 16,575 $ 1.96 $ 32,487.00
Out of Service 36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 1.96 $ 18,243.00
Driver Relief Car Costs 36.5 255 0 $ 0.52 $
Total Direct Costs $ 50,730.00
Hours Total
Per # Service Annual
Day Days Hours Cost per Total Costs
Bus Operator Costs:
Wages & Benefits 8 255 2,040 $ 37.42 $ 76,337.00
Total Proposed Operating Costs $ 127,067.00
Estimated
Annual
Ridership Fare per Total Return
Fare Box Return to City (25% of 04-05 ridership) 24,000 $ 1.00 $ 24,000.00
Net Proposed Operating Costs $ 103,067.00
Rogue Valley Transportation District
Estimated Operating Costs
Proposed Ashland Circulator Route (15)
Revenue Service Hours = 9.0
Route
Length
Trips
Per
Day
# Service
Days
Total
Annual
Miles
Cost per
Total Costs
Bus Operating Cost:
Route 15
Out of Service
Driver Relief Car Costs
Total Direct Costs
Bus Operator Costs:
Wages & Benefits
5.0 18 255 22,950 $ 1.96 $ 44,982.00
36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 1.96 $ 18,243.00
36.5 255 0 $ 0.52 $
$ 63,225.00
Hours Total
Per # Service Annual
Day Days Hours Cost per Total Costs
10.5 255 2,678 $ 37.42 $ 100,192.00
. J
Total Proposed Operating Costs $ 163,417.00
Estimated
Annual
Ridership Fare per Total Return
Fare Box Return to City (35% of 04-05 ridership) 33,600 $ 1.00 $ 33,600.00
Net Proposed Operating Costs $ 129,817.00
Rogue Valley Transportation District
Estimated Operating Costs
Proposed Ashland Circulator Route (15)
Revenue Service Hours = 13
Trips Total
Route Per # Service Annual
Length Day Days Miles Cost per Total Costs
Bus Operating Cost:
Route 15 5.0 26 255 33,150 $ 1.96 $ 64,974.00
Out of Service 36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 1.96 $ 18,243.00
Driver Relief Car Costs 36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 0.52 $ 4,840.00
Total Direct Costs $ 88,057.00
Hours Total
Per # Service Annual
Day Days Hours Cost per Total Costs
Bus Operator Costs:
Wages & Benefits 14.5 255 3,698 $ 37.42 $ 138,360.00
Total Proposed Operating Costs $ 226,417.00
Estimated
Annual
Ridership Fare per T ota I Retu rn
Fare Box Return to City (45% of 04-05 ridership) 43,200 $ 1.00 $ 43,200.00
Net Proposed Operating Costs $ 183,217.00
.. I
Summary of 09-11 Ashland Service Proposals
All proposals are annual estimates
All proposals are based on establishing $1.00 regular fare
Proposal #1 Net Cost Estimate
Loop service for 6.5 hours $103,067
Route 1 0 $102,658
TOTAL $205,725
Proposal #2 Net Cost Estimate
Loop service for 9 hours $129,817
Route 1 0 $102,658
TOTAL $232,475
Proposal #3 Net Cost Estimate
Loop service for 13 hours $183,217
Route 1 0 $102,658
TOTAL $285,875
'. I
RVTD/CITY OF ASHLAND
Reduced Fare Program Agreement
2009 - 20011
Agreement made effective September 7,2009 between Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD)
and the City of Ashland (City).
RVTD and City agree:
1. ENHANCED SERVICES PROGRAM: In order to encourage and increase RVTD ridership within the
City of Ashland, the City will offset the cost of fixed-route fares within the City and support more
frequent service. The intent of the program is to make more efficient use of Ashland's transportation
infrastructure, to reduce greenhouse gases and to promote energy efficiency.
1.1 The program will begin on September 7, 2009 and will be completed effective September
5,2011 to correspond with the Labor Day Holiday.
1.2 Route 10 service is Ashland's base service, and its operation (with the exception of fare
reduction outlined in this agreement) is not affected by this agreement.
1.3 RVTD will provide 15 -minute service between the downtown, Ashland St, Tolman Creek
Rd and Highway 66/Siskiyou Boulevard with the addition of Route 15.
1.4 RVTD will reduce the cost of the fixed route fare from illl[ and the Valley Lift
fare from to passengers picked up and delivered within the City of
Ashland.
1 .5 RVTD will provide the City with a quarterly ridership memo outlining the total Route 10
ridership, the ridership on the Route 10 within the City of Ashland, the ridership on Route
15 and the Valley Lift ridership within the City of Ashland.
1.6 RVTD will bill City for the reduced fares on Route 10 as described 1.4, based on actual
number of rides provided within the City. The City to be invoiced as outlined in 1.9 below.
1.7 RVTD will bill City for the reduced fares on Valley Lift described above based on actual
number of rides provided within the City. RVTD will also bill the City for the operating
costs of providing Valley Lift for rides that exceed 9,800 passengers per year. The billed
amount shall equal $18.31 per ride over the 9,800 threshold. The City to be invoiced as
outlined in 1.9 below.
1.8 The City of Ashland shall retain the fare generated from Route 15 (farebox return) to
offset the costs of providing this service.
2. CONSIDERATIONS:
2.1 RVTD will invoice the City on a quarterly basis for the operating costs of providing Route
15 not to exceed $163,500 per annum. The amount billed each quarter shall be $40,875
minus the Route 15 farebox return generated during the billable time period.
. I
2.2 The City will remit to RVTD the costs of reducing fare within the City of Ashland on the
fixed-route and Valley Lift systems and the operating costs of Route 15 minus the farebox
return to be billed as follows:
2.2.1 December 15, 2009
2.2.2 March 15,2010
2.2.3 June 15, 2010
2.2.4 October 15, 2010
2.2.5 December 15, 2010
2.2.6 March 15,2011
2.2.7 June 15,2011
2.2.8 October 15, 2011
(services provided 9/7/2009 to 11/30/2009)
(services provided 12/1/2009 to 2/28/2010)
(services provided 3/1/2010 to 5/30/2010)
(services provided 6/1/2010 to 9/6/2010)
(services provided 9/7/2010 to 11/30/2010)
(services provided 12/1/2010 to 2/28/2011)
(services provided 3/1/2011 to 5/30/2011)
(services provided 6/1/2010 to 9/5/2011)
2.3 Payment is due to RVTD within 14 calendar days of receipt of invoice.
2.4 In the event that operating costs of Route 15 exceed 2.5% (increase of $0.05 per
operating mile or $1.00 per hour in Bus Operator costs) prior to this agreement's
completion, RVTD reserves the right to seek fair compensation from the City to continue
operation of Route 15.
2.5 Should either the City or RVTD wish to modify the enhanced services described in 1.1
through 1.10 both parties shall meet and negotiate modifications to this Agreement.
3. TERMINATION:
3.1 Termination for convenience. This agreement may be terminated by either party for that
party's convenience upon thirty days written notice to the other party. RVTD shall be
compensated for all services performed under this agreement up to effective termination
date.
3.2 For Cause. Either party may immediately terminate this agreement for cause upon
delivery of written notice to the other party or such later date as may be established by
mutual agreement, under any of the following conditions;
3.2.1 If Federal or state laws, rules or regulation are modified, changed or interpreted in
such a manner that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate under this
agreement;
3.2.2 If any license or certification required by law or regulation required for the provision
of the services under this agreement is for any reason denied, revoked,
suspended, or not renewed.
4. PUBLICITY:
4.1 Any publicity or advertising regarding the program by the City shall first be reviewed by
RVTD for accuracy and must acknowledge the support of RVTD. RVTD will provide City
with appropriate logo for this purpose.
4.2 RVTD will post a map and schedule at each designated bus shelter in Ashland detailing
the Route 10 and Route 15 bus stops.
2
.. I
4.3 City will create and print brochure size maps and schedules for distribution.
4.4 RVTD will promote the Ashland service at events, at map/schedule distribution points and
at www.rvtd.org.
5. Access to Records. The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to the
records of RVTD and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the
purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts.
6. Workers Comoensation RVTD, its subcontractors, if any, an all employees working under this
Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's Compensation Law and shall comply
with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their
subject workers.
7. General Liability RVTD, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this Agreement must
comply with Oregon State Laws related to workers compensation, employment, payroll taxes and
general liability for loss of property, injury to riders or others.
8. Livinq Waqe RVTD is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal code by paying
a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this Agreement and
to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this Agreement. RVTD is
also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where all employees will see it.
ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DIST
CITY OF ASHLAND
By
By
Martha Bennett
City Administrator
Julie Brown
General Manager
Reviewed as to form:
Reviewed as to form:
By
By
David Lohman
Legal Counsel for RVTD
Date:
City Attorney
Date:
3
.. I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Conservation Commission Ordinance
April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact:
Legal E-Mail:
City Recorder Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Richard Appicello
appicelr@ashland.or.us
Barbara Christensen
5 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve the Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19?"
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the Second Reading and adopt this ordinance.
Background:
The Conservation Commission requested removal of the provision requiling the Council Liaison to serve as
Chair of the Commission. Because the Commission was created by resolution, and not an ordinance, the
City Recorder requested that the enabling legislation be incorporated into the Ashland Municipal Code.
Staff recommends that the Mayor or Council Liaison not be made voting members but rather an ex officio
non-voting member. This is contrary to the Conservation Commission's request but consistent with all
other commissions. As a consequence of removing the Mayor or Council Liaison from the voting member
block, six other voting members are appointed by the Mayor and Council. Staffhas also added a
continuation clause so that the Commission need not be re-formed due to the repeal and codification. If the
Council accepts staffs recommendation, one new voting member will need to be appointed to compensate
for the loss of the Mayor or Council Liaison as voting member. With the exception of the changes noted,
the proposed ordinance is essentially the same as the Resolution.
On March 17t\ 2009 the City Council requested three changes: (1.) Change number of "other" members
required to be residents from 4 to 5; and (2.) designate staff liaison; and (3.) add "Chair" to AMC 2.18.
These changes are reflected in the revised ordinance and must be read at second reading.
Related City Policies:
Ashland City Charter Article X
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve Second Reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and
Repealing Resolution 95-19?".
(2) Postpone Second Reading.
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct Second Reading] [Read Changes from First Reading].
Council: Motion to approve Second Reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission
and Repealing Resolution 95-19 and adopt Ordinance".
Attachments:
Ordinance
Page 1 of 1
., r
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION 95-19
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to codify the creation of the Conservation
Commission in the Ashland Municipal Code; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 2.18, Conservation Commission, is hereby established to
read as follows:
2.18.010 Established-Membership. The Conservation Commission is
established and shall consist of nine votina members includina one
representative of the solid waste franchisee for the city; and one
representative from Southern Oreaon University; and one representative
from the Ashland School District and six (6) other votina members. At
least five (5) of the other members shall reside within the city. The
commission shall also consist of certain non-votina ex officio members,
includina the mayor or one council member servina as council liaison, the
Department of Community Development Director and the Electric Utilitv
Director, the Director of Public Works, the Buildina Official and City
Administrator. The Electric Utilitv Director shall serve as the primary staff
liaison and Secretary of the Commission. Votina members shall be
appointed bv the Mavor with confirmation bv the City Council.
2.18.020 Terms-Vacancies. The term of votina members shall be for
three years, expirina on April 30 of each year. Anv vacancy shall be filled
bv appointment bv the Mavor with confirmation bv the City Council for the
unexpired portion of the term. The terms of the initial nine members shall
be three members for one year, three for two years, and three for three
years, which shall be drawn bv lot at the first meetina of the commission
after the adoption of this resolution. Their successors shall be appointed
for three-year terms. Anv commissioner who has four or more unexcused
absences in a one-year period shall be considered no lonaer active and the
position vacant and a new person shall be appointed to fill the vacancy.
2.18.030 Quorum-Rules and Meetinas. Five votina members of the
commission shall constitute a Quorum. If a Quorum is present. the
affirmative vote of a maioritv of commissioners present at the meetina and
entitled to vote shall be sufficient to conduct business. The commission
may make rules and reaulations for its meetinas and procedures
Page 1 of 3
-. I
consistent with city ordinances and this resolution. and shall meet at least
once every month. At its first meetina. the commission shall elect a chair
and vice-chair who shall serve for a period of one year or until replaced bv
the commission.
2.18.040 Powers and Duties - Generallv. The powers. duties and
responsibilities of the commission shall be to educate and advocate for the
wise and efficient use of resources bv the City of Ashland and all Ashland
citizens. In doinQ so the commission shall recommend to the council the
adoption of policies. implementation strateQies and fundinQ related to:
A. RecvclinQ. source reduction and solid waste/landfill issues;
B. Electric conservation issues;
C. Water conservation issues;
D. Resource conservation issues;
E. New power resource decisions. but not includinQ decisions
involvina wholesale power contracts;
F. Renewable resource decisions;
G. Air Qualitv issues;
H. Education of citizens about efficiency issues; and
2.18.050 Reports. The commission shall submit copies of its minutes
to the City Council and shall prepare and submit such reports as from time
to time may be reQuested bv the council.
2.18.060 Compensation. Votina members of the Commission shall
receive no compensation for services rendered.
SECTION 2. Continuation of existing appointments. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Ordinance, currently seated Conservation Commission voting
members, appointed under authority of Resolution 95-19, (exclusive of the Mayor and
Council Liaison)shall be considered appointed for purposes of this ordinance with term
expirations as they currently exist. Vacancies shall be filled as provided in this
ordinance. Members who have violated the four or more unexcused absences in a one-
year provision of Resolution 95-19 shall not be excused by this Section.
SECTION 3. Repeal. Resolution 95-19 is hereby repealed as of the effective date of
this ordinance.
SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and
clauses.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
"chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or
Page 2 of 3
.. r
re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e.
Sections 2-5) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any
cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section
2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 3 of 3
.. I